Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

White Fish Authority (Levy)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the White Fish Authority's proposal to increase its general levy.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I have nothing to add at present to the answer by my right hon. Friend to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 5th November.—[Vol. 790, c. 993–4.]

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that three schemes concerning the W.F.A. are now under consideration, the one in the Question, the publicity scheme, and the minimum prices for Scotland scheme? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects decisions on each of these schemes?

Mr. Hughes: I am anxious for an early conclusion but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the statutory procedure must be followed, and this provides for inquiries and discussions with the Authority by Ministers in coming to a decision to reject or confirm with or without modifications. I shall act as quickly as I possibly can in the matter.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my company some weeks ago his right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had an amicable meeting with the Port Wholesale Fish Merchants Association? Many questions were asked at that meeting. Is it pos-

sible to have an answer to those questions now?

Mr. Hughes: Not during this Question time. I realise the importance of the meeting referred to by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary reported the results of that meeting, which we regard as very useful.

European Free Trade Association (Iceland)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effects on the British fishing industry of Iceland's proposal to join the European Free Trade Association.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): About three-quarters of Icelandic exports to the United Kingdom, including fresh and frozen whole fish, will be unaffected. The effects of the removal of the 10 per cent. tariff on other fishery products are likely to be less important than those arising from general factors such as fluctuations in the level of production and changes in the attractiveness of other markets, especially in view of the new minimum export price arrangements for frozen fillets which Iceland will observe in common with other Nordic countries.

Mr. Wall: While welcoming Iceland into E.F.T.A., and also the safeguards mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him to confirm that he regards these as sufficient to prevent the dumping of fish on the British market, which is the biggest in Europe?

Mr. Hoy: We hope that they will be sufficient, but we have other reserve powers if they prove not to be.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the E.F.T.A. agreement provides us with a foothold in Europe at the moment and that if we are to have wider European unity the question of association with our E.F.T.A. partners is important? This is why we welcome the recent agreement, and look forward to its development.

Mr. Hoy: In our dealings with our E.F.T.A. partners we have always had great co-operation, and I am grateful that


the House thinks that the latest agreement is one more example of that.

Mr. Stodart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a reasonable assurance that the effect on the British fishing industry of this proposal for Iceland to join E.F.T.A. will not be a lowering of the British fisherman's share of his own market?

Mr. Hoy: We hope that that has been safeguarded. When we enter into agreements of this kind the policing will be done by the exporting countries, and we hope that they will go about it in a responsible way. We have no reason to doubt that they will do anything other than that.

Imported Animal Products (Antibiotic Supplements)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to ensure that imported animal products for human consumption are produced from stock to whose diets antibiotic supplements have not been added.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We are at present finding out what antibiotics, if any, are being used by countries which export animal products to us. In the light of this information we shall decide what further action is necessary.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that this work has been done. While welcoming the report of the Swann Committee, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to undertake that once he has completed this survey he will make sure that in any recommendations that are made there is fair and equitable competition between home producers and imported food?

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman. It is one which is very much in my mind. It is, however, rather unfair to make any charges against imported supplies until we know precisely what the position is, and that is what we are in the process of finding out.

Timber Production

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he

will give details of plans for the expansion of timber output in the Kielder Forest in the 1970s; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The output of timber from the Commission's Northumberland forests is expected to increase from the present level of about 50,000 tons a year to about 200,000 tons by 1980. I expect all but a small proportion of this increased output to be taken up by existing industries.

Mr. Milne: I thank my hon. Friend very warmly for his reply as it represents a considerable expansion which will be to the benefit of Northumberland in which the Kielder Forest will play an increasingly central part.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the total acreage of productive woodlands in the United Kingdom is in State ownership; and how this figure compares with France, West Germany and Sweden, respectively, on the basis of information available to him from international sources.

Mr. John Mackie: The Forestry Commission manages about 51 per cent. of the total area of the productive woodlands in Great Britain. I understand that the corresponding percentages in State ownership in the countries named by the noble Lord are:

Per cent.


France
…
14


Federal Republic of Germany
…
31


Sweden
…
20

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that this is the right proportion for the conditions existing in our country? Is it his intention to aim to maintain this balance for the next 50 years?

Mr. Mackie: The three countries which the noble Lord mentioned in his Question, of course, have large areas of natural forest, and it is not easy to make a comparison between those countries and ours. After the 1914–18 war the Forestry Commission was set up, and it has planted about 2 million acres in this country. I do not know what the exact balance should be.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House the comparative figures for Wales?

Mr. Mackie: Not without notice.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what estimate he has made of the United Kingdom's self sufficiency in timber supplies in every form including pulp and paper in the year 2010, based on the acreage of afforestation over the next five years and a projection of the present rising consumption trend.

Mr. John Mackie: No estimate has been made as far ahead as the year 2010.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to assume that the figure will probably be about 10 per cent. and that with timber imports at present running at a level of over £640 million a year, this means that the necessity to boost forestry in order to save imports over the next few years is very great indeed?

Mr. Mackie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are aware of the huge figure of timber imports into this country, but I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to estimate what will be the demand 40 or 50 years hence, in view of the use of plastics and other similar materials. It is very difficult to estimate as far a head as that.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the time factor has been extended from the 20 years which the Treasury took as being the limit of its vision with regard to timber in the debates some years ago? Twenty years only covers the growth of poplar and willow trees, and is it not much better, therefore, to look 40 years ahead?

Mr. Mackie: We were looking at the question of the production of Kielder Forest a few months ago. The estimates that we looked at were 40 to 45 years for soft wood for pulp, and I presume that the Treasury will have to fall in with that estimate.

Earl of Dalkeith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Sheep Flock

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the size of the national breeding flock of sheep in each of the last three years.

Mr. Hoy: The breeding flock in the United Kingdom numbered 14,223,000 at June, 1967, 13,873,000 at June, 1968 and 13,315,000 at June, 1969.

Mr. Pardoe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information. However, will he say what he intends to do to change the trend?

Mr. Hoy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the last four reviews we have increased the guaranteed price by 15 per cent. In the 1967 review we extended the hill sheep subsidy to 40 per cent. more sheep and at the same time improved the terms. Obviously, we want to build up that part of our stock.

Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as I said to the Minister a little while ago, much of the effect of this is being nullified by the fact that whole farms are being taken out of production for afforestation? This is happening in the hill areas to which the Minister wants the flock to go. What will be done about this?

Mr. Hoy: This has always been a very difficult question. Other hon. Members opposite are always telling me that we are not doing enough for forestry. We must endeavour to have a plan. We will make way for sheep, but we must not deny forestry its fair share of land.

International Sugar Council

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the results of the recent meeting held in London of the Council of the International Sugar Organisation.

Mr. Hoy: The main decision taken by the International Sugar Council at its meeting last month was on the initial level of the export quotas of the exporting members of the International Sugar Agreement during 1970.

Mr. Body: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the discussions which led to that decision confirm the view held by many that not until the E.E.C. and the United States join the I.S.O. will there be any stability in the international sugar market and that the sooner we can bring those two in the better it will be, not only for Commonwealth sugar producers but for our own?

Mr. Hoy: We should not seek to weaken what has been done for the sugar market through the British Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Price stability, which is fair to the producer and the consumer, is, on the whole, very much appreciated by every country concerned.

Horticultural Produce (Imports)

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consult with the President of the Board of Trade on limitation of the import of horticultural items which British growers are capable of producing.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the limitation of the importation of horticultural produce which British growers are capable of producing.

Mr. Hoy: Whilst horticulture enjoys protection by tariff or, in the case of apples and pears, quota restrictions, my right hen. Friend and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade are agreed that rather than increasing such restrictions it should be our general policy to help the industry to improve its competitive efficiency so that home-grown produce will replace imports on its merits. To this end there are a series of measures to help growers improve their production and marketing arrangements.

Mr. Body: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the President of the Board of Trade in plain terms that no less than £45 million worth of fresh vegetables and fruit are imported into this country which could perfectly well be grown here?

Mr. Hoy: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, because of Government assist-

ance, the glasshouse acreage has increased by 294 acres and outdoor vegetable acreages are up by 30,000 acres compared with last June.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that one of the main problems facing growers of tomatoes and lettuces in my constituency is the astonishing and unsatisfactory way in which the prices realised fluctuate? Is he studying ways of bringing greater stability into the market?

Mr. Hoy: Yes. We hope that co-operatives will play a part in this. It is interesting to note that the glass acreage for tomatoes alone increased by 103 acres.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Questions have been asked about whether we could increase our exports of capital goods to countries such as Romania? Unless we buy something from Romania, that country cannot afford to buy our capital goods. There must be a two-way traffic. We appreciate my right hon. Friend's efforts.

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because trade is a two-way traffic. Our country lives by trade. Therefore, while we want to export all that we can, we must enter into agreements with other countries so that trade can flow freely.

Mr. Stodart: Important as export-winning undoubtedly is, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are firmly wedded to import substitution and what the potential is in this particular part of horticulture?

Mr. Hoy: We want to save all that we can. The Government and the industry have made tremendous investments. Grant payments for completed schemes under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme came to very nearly £10 million in the last three years. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be satisfied with what we are doing in this country to meet our own needs.

Mr. Nott: Would the right hon. Gentleman again consider a more flexible use of the tariff? I refer specifically to early potatoes. At the moment, the increase is made on a set date every year, regardless of conditions in the home market.

Mr. Hoy: We are always considering these matters. However, when we enter into tariff agreements, we must fix set dates when they come into force. If anything can be done to help, I will consider it.

Stupefying Bait

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the 1969 series of narcotic bait layings in England and Wales.

Mr. John Mackie: Between March and August this year farmers were licensed to lay stupefying bait in 286 Ministry-sponsored operations.
Approximately 3,200 wood pigeons were caught and humanely destroyed as well as a number of rooks, crows and feral pigeons. A small number of protected and game birds were caught but most of these recovered.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for that answer, but it is inadequate. What was the cost of these trials? Does the hon. Gentleman recall that last year they worked out at about 14s. of taxpayers' money per wood pigeon killed?

Mr. Mackie: The cost of supervision—which is the only cost this year because the bait was paid for by the farmers—was about £8 or £9 for each separate operation, which, I readily admit, cost about £1 a bird. This is the price which we must pay in acceding to the pressures of farmers to use this method of control and to the demands of the protection societies and others to minimise the risk to other birds.

Brucellosis

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total number of herds which will have to be accredited as brucellosis-free, to provide a pool of brucellosis-free stock, before introducing eradication of the disease on an area basis.

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cause of the delay in progress towards the eradication of brucellosis; if he will now announce his proposals for area eradication; what is his

estimate of the annual cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The main obstacle to an early start with area eradication is the existence of large numbers of vaccinal reactors. To start too early would mean the unnecessary slaughter of those animals and would call for an unduly large number of replacements. These reactors will be progressively culled from herds over the next three years. In two years' time, for example, some 15,000 to 20,000 accredited herds should, on certain assumptions, provide sufficient replacements for a start to be made with area eradication on a worthwhile scale.
My aim is to start limited eradication projects in specially selected areas in 1971, and I am already looking at the practical requirements. The annual cost will depend on the scale, timing, and terms of the compulsory scheme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has come to a tentative decision about area eradication, but must we still wait another two or three years before we get under way? Is he aware that the great weight of veterinary opinion is that we must go in for area eradication if the scheme is to progress and that unless we give a strong and positive lead in the next two or three years the scheme may grind to a halt?

Mr. Hughes: What I said was not tentative. I said that I was considering practical schemes for area eradication in certain areas in 1971. That is positive. This is a satisfactory proposal, bearing in mind the increasing progress which we are making. Since I made my statement on 5th November, the level of applications has been rising. Currently it is exceeding 150 a week. Therefore, very good progress is being made.

Mr. Ashton: Does my right hon. Friend intend to take action on the allegations that farmers are deliberately selling cattle which are brucellosis carriers, knowing that this could spread the disease?

Mr. Hughes: That would be a thoroughly unscrupulous thing to do and would be deplored throughout the House. I hope that it is not happening.

Food Prices

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many food price increases have been referred to his Department this year; and how many have been approved.

Mr. Hoy: So far this year 164 proposals for food price increases have been notified to the Department under the early warning arrangements. Of these 111 have been accepted as notified and a further 16 after modification. The remainder have either been withdrawn or are still under consideration.

Mr. Huckfield: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I shall continue to send to his right hon. Friend any complaints about increases that are referred to me. Would not my hon. Friend agree that the whole machinery might be rather more meaningful if more price increases were refused?

Mr. Hoy: I can only reply that the procedure is that of the early warning system. The proposals come before my Department, and I can assure my hon. Friend that they are most carefully examined before we permit the increases to take place. We should not think that this represents the whole record, because the very fact that it is known that this procedure exists very frequently keeps people from making applications.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that nearly all of these applications for increased food prices arise from the incidence of the selective employment tax in the food retail and wholesale distributive trades; and that were this tax removed, with it would go nearly all the demands for increased food prices?

Mr. Hoy: I wish that were true. There are many reasons for increased costs—wages, materials, and so on. Very frequently we are dependent on supplies from abroad for what we require, and unless we pay the price we do not get it.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can my right hon. Friend say whether in respect of one of the most recent increases—the 2d. on a pint of beer—he has been assured by the brewers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a Question on beer later in the Order Paper.

Mr. Fernyhough: But this, Mr. Speaker, is one of the increases that the Minister says he has already approved. The Minister has given a number of increases he has approved, and this is one of them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to your point of order, Mr. Speaker—if I may call it that, with respect. Can we be assured that beer is food?

Mr. Speaker: I would not rule on such an esoteric question. Mr. Fernyhough.

Mr. Fernyhough: What I was seeking to obtain from my right hon. Friend was an assurance that none of the increased profits which would accrue to the brewers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question No. 35 relates to beer. The hon. Gentleman cannot anticipate another hon. Member's question.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister at Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has now taken to halt the rising prices in basic foodstuffs and other necessities; what results he has obtained; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am continuing my arrangements for price surveillance. I am satisfied that no unjustified increases have occurred. Throughout the last five years average earnings have been rising faster than the price of food.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he shops around during the weekend he may change his mind? Does he realise that half pound tins of imported food are going up in price by 4d. and 6d. overnight? Is there not some effective action that we could take to stop these price increases?

Mr. Hughes: I have indicated what the situation is. Food prices have been kept stable below the general increase in prices and earnings. I can assure my hon. Friend that I do shop around at weekends. Certainly I agree that any food price increase is unwelcome, but, on the whole, the early warning system has worked very well indeed, and I pay tribute to the food industry for the co-operation that it has given us.

Mr. Godber: Since the Minister is taking credit for what he calls the steadiness of food prices, will he not acknowledge that they have risen twice as fast in the last five years compared with are five years before and that they have been averaging 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. higher?

Mr. Hughes: That is not the case. The increase in the price of food in the last five years compares favourably with the situation during the 13 years of Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question asking for details, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Mr. Manuel: With regard to this hullaballoo on the other side of the House about prices, are we to understand that before prices can be reduced we have to increase farming subsidies? Is that what hon. Members opposite are after?

Mr. Hughes: The Annual Price Review and subsidies have a part to play, and they help to hold down food prices. But it is fair to say that this money does not go into the farmers' pockets. Nevertheless it is helpful in the maintenance of food prices.

Mr. Biffen: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is currently examining an application for an increase in the price of bread, and will he say when he expects to conclude his examination? In addition, will he on this occasion tell the House before the Press is informed?

Mr. Hughes: I can make no statement on bread at present.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has agreed to allow manufacturers of sausages and meat pies to increase their prices by 2d. per 1b.; why, under the early warning system, these increases have been approved; to what extent the reduction of the Common Market's import levy of 5d. per 1b. on pork encouraging the export of pigs has had an effect on the rise in the prices of these articles; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: Recent price increases by leading manufacturers of sausages and meat pies were accepted as justified under the early warning arrangements by my Department. The prices of these products are affected by many factors.
It is not possible to quantify as a separate element the effect on price levels of exports of pigs since the reduction of the Common Market levy.

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend surprised to learn that there are 250 price increases prophesied in the New Year in addition to these? Does he realise that every time that these people prophesy an increase they automatically get it? Is this because the Ministry works hand in glove with them?

Mr. Hoy: I rather resent the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Any manufacturer who wants to increase the price of his goods has to send the application to my Department, where it is examined very carefully. It is misleading, as our predecessors found, to accept some figures from The Grocers' Gazette. It can be misleading to the general public.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Northumberland Committee's Report)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on Part 2 of the Northumberland Committee Report.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on the second part of the Report on Foot-and-Mouth Disease by the Northumberland Commission.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The report is due to be published and presented to Parliament on 16th December, and I hope to make an announcement on the same day.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: When the Minister introduced his foot-and-mouth Orders on 16th October he stated that the Duke of Northumberland did not see any conflict between those Orders and the likely outcome of his own report. Can the right hon. Gentleman say, having seen that report, that there is still no conflict between it and the Orders?

Mr. Hughes: That is so.

Pesticides

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the decision of the


United States Department of Agriculture about the use of D.D.T. as a pesticide, details of which have been sent to him, what action he proposes to take in this country about the use of this chemical.

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the fact that the United States Government are proposing to ban the use of certain persistent insecticides, he will now take similar action.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Advisory Committee on Pesticides and Other Toxic Chemicals has now completed its further review, which includes D.D.T. I expect that its report will be published and that, with permission, I shall make a statement on 17th December.

Mr. Huckfield: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the sense of urgency he has imparted into this matter, but will he bear in mind that the United States Department of Agriculture has imparted into it even more sense of urgency, and that several States have already banned D.D.T.?

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, but he and the House will bear in mind that the Report which is referred to is one produced by British scientists, and it is a thorough and full report to which I have given the most careful attention. It is on the basis of what our own scientists report that I hope to make a statement next week.

Mr. Farr: As the United States Government have recently banned imports of French and other Continental cheeses because they contain this particular poison, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has examined French and other Continental cheese imported to this country for an excessive quantity of benzene hexachloride?

Mr. Hughes: This is a question on which the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee would report.

North Pennines Rural Development Board

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the work

of the North Pennines Rural Development Board since its inception.

Mr. John Mackie: The board is reviewing the problems and needs of the area, and it is for the board to decide how far, and when, the results of its review should be published. The board is required to submit to my right hon. Friend annual reports on the discharge of its functions, and these will be laid before Parliament in due course.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the expenditure and staffing of the Board have risen at an alarming rate? In July he told me that the first year's expenditure would be £35,000, and he now tells me that it is £45,000; and he told me in July that the staff would be 8 and he now tells me it is 14. Why was I misled in the reply to my Question in July?

Mr. Mackie: There is no question of trying to mislead the hon. Gentleman. It is not easy to estimate things, including agricultural policies, as he knows. The board is probably working a little more quickly than we thought it would, which is a good thing.

Investment Grants

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the proposed removal of investment grants on tractors and harvesters will be taken into account at the next Price Review.

Mr. John Mackie: Investment grants are not relevant production grants, and are therefore not included within the value of the guarantees.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister tell us when the investment grants on tractors and combines are to end, and what is to be put in their place? We still have not been told.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member is a member of the committee which is discussing the subject, and this will be decided after the committee has made its findings.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman's answer somewhat surprised the House. Does it mean that farmers will get no reimbursement of the loss of this £5 million or more that they will sustain on investment grants?

Mr. Mackie: The right hon. Gentleman knows well, and my right hon. Friend made it clear on the Second Reading of the Bill, that this money is to be spread over grants as a whole, and not tied to tractors and combine harvesters.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what had caused the decline between the estimate for 1969–70 of £10·3 million of investment grants, given last March in Command Paper No. 3965, and the figure in November of just over £5 million.

Mr. John Mackie: There has been no decline. The estimate of £10·3 million to which the hon. Member refers relates to all agricultural investment grants.

Mr. Stodart: Is it not a pity that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not make that clear when he made the comparison? Is the hon. Member aware that in the first ten months of the year there has been a decline of no less than 37 per cent. in the number of combine harvesters bought? Is not this a glaring example of the red light flashing at the Government's deplorable policy?

Mr. Mackie: No, Sir.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the saving in cost of the proposed removal of investment grants to farmers for agricultural machinery.

Mr. John Mackie: None, Sir, apart from possible savings in administrative costs.

Mr. Lewis: Is there not fear among farmers that the Government intend to save money in this respect? Does not the Minister appreciate that after a bad season, with a high Bank rate, farmers cannot afford any reduction in what they already get in these investment grants?

Mr. Mackie: I am not blaming the hon. Member, but some of his colleagues are giving this impression. If they would not ask such leading questions on the subject, farmers would not be misled.

Mr. Godber: If the Minister is concerned about farmers being misled, will he address himself to the point that the

Government made the change from investment grants? Investment allowances were well understood and appreciated by farmers. We now have an excuse put forward for removing the grants altogether. Is it not therefore reasonable that farmers should misunderstand if the Government keep changing their attitude without giving adequate explanation?

Mr. Mackie: I am sure that farmers listen as much to what we say as the right hon. Member does.

Intensive Poultry Units (Waste Products Disposal)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to require chemical additives to be used in order to minimise the stench arising from the disposal of waste products from intensive poultry units; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: We have no power to make such a requirement; but the National Agricultural Advisory Service is always ready to advise farmers on the most appropriate husbandry practices to adopt to minimise smells.

Mr. Biffen: What proposals has the hon. Gentleman for making more widely known and available this code of practices which has been suggested by the National Agricultural Advisory Service? Is he himself satisfied that those proposals can have a material effect upon the stench?

Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a lot of research is being done on this subject. There are certain scents, if I may put it that way, that one can add, and processes of aeration of the stuff, and many other methods. The farmer knows that he can go to the N.A.A.S. and be advised on what is most suitable for his case. For myself, working on the farm, I sometimes thing that complaints of these smells are exaggerated; but I know that there is another side to the story.

Livestock (Welfare Codes)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet received a report from the Advisory Committee for the Welfare of


Farm Animals on proposed changes in the Codes for the Welfare of Livestock; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: No. Sir. Following the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave the House on 20th October the committee is urgently re-examining certan code recommendations, and will report in due course.

Mr. Turton: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that the House and the country are most anxious that the Minister shall fulfil his undertaking fully and promptly and give a report to the House after he has received the report of the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Mackie: If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman and the people whom he has mentioned are being a little impatient. The debate was on 20th October. Let us give the committee time to see how the codes will work.

Cereal Crops

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total estimated yield of the cereal crop for 1969 in weight for each separate cereal.

Mr. Hoy: The provisional estimate of the 1969 United Kingdom cereal crop is 13·8 million tons, made up of 3·4 million tons of wheat, 8·8 million tons of barley, 1·3 million tons of oats, 0·2 million tons of mixed corn, and 11,000 tons of rye.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the Minister aware that many farmers suffered very badly this year because of adverse conditions in the early sowing season? Is he prepared to look at the situation again to see whether anything can be done to help those farmers whose yields are very badly down, particularly in comparison with the national average?

Mr. Hoy: We are glad that the crop turned out to be about 1 million tons higher than last year. Frankly, I cannot promise that we can go into the question again. If anybody knows the difficulties involved it is the hon. Member, who had to administer this scheme when he filled the office which I at present hold.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the frequent demands already made in this Session by

hon. Members opposite for more of the taxpayers' money, has my hon. Friend made cost assessments of some of these demands, particularly as they are made by a party which proposes to cut taxation?

Mr. Hoy: They are made so frequently that it would take a considerable time to add them all up, but I agree with my hon. Friend this continued demand for money does not seem to go with promises made at the same time of cuts in taxation.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the effect of wet weather on farmers' yields in Nottinghamshire; and what action he will take.

Mr. John Mackie: Although we appreciate that some individual farmers have had a lean year, yields in Nottinghamshire as a whole, of the principal crops, are likely to be only slightly less than last year, except for wheat where we expect a small increase.
In the circumstances, the Government consider that the 1970 Annual Review will provide the proper opportunity to take account of the whole agricultural situation in the context of our expansion objectives.

Mr. Ashton: While I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, does he not accept that it is rather at variance with what is being said by farmers in the area? Will he not pay particular attention in the farm prices review to their views and opinions?

Mr. Mackie: I know that when one has a bad year—and some of my hon. Friend's constituents have—one is not inclined to believe the overall figure. But the system of estimating these yields has been the same over the years, and we must take them as being fairly accurate. I appreciate that in the Nottingham area and in the Trent Valley many farmers had very low yields.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that while the Price Review must take account of the national picture, that will not help my constituents or those of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who have suffered particularly badly? Is there not something


which could be done for those who have suffered great hardship?

Mr. Mackie: It has been a principle over many years that farmers take weather risks. I know only too well that we have had two years of very bad weather. But to do what the hon. Member suggests would be to breach the principle; he knows the difficulties as well as I do.

Agricultural Products

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage in 1969 of home-produced, as compared with total consumption, beef, lamb, butter, cheese, milk, barley, pork and bacon, respectively.

Mr. John Mackie: A high percentage of beef and veal, pork, barley and dried milk is home produced. The percentage is lower for the other commodities mentioned. I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Do not these figures show that there is a considerable leeway in most of the main products, other than liquid milk, for the home producer to increase his share of the market? In view of what his right hon. Friend said last year and at the beginning of this year, what is he doing to increase that share, which at the moment is not being increased at all?

Mr. Mackie: There are no specific targets for the rate of expansion of home production and for the import savings programme, but the general trend is in the right direction. If the hon. Member studies the figures at the start and looks at the position today he will see that.

Mr. Snow: Since there appears to be a world glut of butter, will my hon. Friend consult the appropriate Department—in this case the Ministry of Technology—about our imports of New Zealand butter. New Zealand expects us to import her butter but refuses to accept our aircraft.

Mr. Mackie: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's comment.

Following is the information:


United Kingdom production of agricultural products as a percentage of supplies for consumption in United Kingdom*


(Year ending June, 1969)


Beef and Veal
…
…
…
74


Mutton and Lamb
…
…
…
40


Butter
…
…
…
10


Cheese
…
…
…
41


Dried Milk
…
…
…
80


Barley
…
…
…
97


Pork
…
…
…
97


Bacon and Ham
…
…
…
36


* United Kingdom production (including production for export) has been expressed as a percentage of home production plus imports (excluding canned and otherwise processed) less exports and stock adjustments. Separate information on beef, lamb, and bacon is not available.

Universities (Departments of Veterinary Epidemiology)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek powers to set up departments of veterinary epidemiology in universities.

Mr. John Mackie: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has brought the comments of the Swann Committee on this subject to the attention of the University Grants Committee. The organisation of veterinary education is a matter for the universities themselves.

Mr. Dalyell: Could a decision be taken about veterinary epidemiology before the more complex recommendations of the Swann Committee are finalised?

Mr. Mackie: We shall need to consider that.

Animals (Antibiotic Resistance)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out details of his plans to set up a permanent monitoring apparatus to check the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in animals.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Swann Committee recommended the establishment of facilities for the surveillance of the bacteria of animals, animal products and man, including their antibiotic


resistance. This is one of the committee's longer-term recommendations, which we are considering in consultation with interested organisations.

Mr. Dalyell: What consultations are taking place?

Mr. Hughes: Extensive consultation is necessary among the Government Departments concerned, with organisations such as the Agricultural and Medical Research Councils, the Public Health Laboratory Service and professional organisations.

Mr. Stodart: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the cost of these two proposals, as his hon. Friend appears to be so sensitive about costs?

Mr. Hughes: We are at an early stage of the consultations. As always, we shall be careful about costs.

Agricultural Industry (Liquidity)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied as to the effects of the Government's economic policy on the liquidity position of the agricultural industry; and if he will redress any adverse effects before the Annual Review.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Essential needs for short-term working capital are generally being met and I know of no reason to anticipate the normal consideration at the Annual Review.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers are disturbed and apprehensive because of the problems which they face? For example, interest rates are at an unprecedentedly high level. Secondly, there are the increases in costs which both farmers and the right hon. Gentleman know will take place during the course of next year but which will not be taken into account until the following year.

Mr. Hughes: In general these are matters for consideration during the review negotiations. The hon. Member well knows that the prevailing high interest rates, which are in line with world interest rates, have not cut off the farmers' demand for credit. It should be borne in mind that a borrowing rate of 9½ per

cent. is effectively about 5½ per cent. to a farmer paying income tax at the standard rate. The hon. Member also knows that agriculture is in the highest credit priority within the banks' lending ceiling.

Mr. Jopling: Has the Minister looked at the figures for the take-up of fertilisers last year? Can he put the reduction down to anything other than a shortage of cash among farmers?

Mr. Hughes: I will certainly look at the question of fertilisers. It is a matter which obviously we shall be considering during the review. But the hon. Member will have borne in mind that total bank advances to agriculture and forestry amounted to £536 million at mid-August this year, which is £18 million more than at the same time last year.

Mr. Stodart: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he is satisfied with the liquidity position, may I ask whether he has read the opinion of one of the leading bankers in the country who said that there was not a chance of expansion getting under way unless prices improved?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I invite him to read the answer which I have just given.

Fishing Rights, Lune Estuary

Mr. Henig: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) what action he proposes to take to safeguard fishing rights in the Lune Estuary;

(2) what representations he has received on behalf of Mr. P. Smith of Sunderland Point about fishing rights in the Lune Estuary; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Hoy: I am not aware that fishing rights in the Lune are in need of any special protection. We have had no representations on behalf of Mr. P. Smith other than those from my hon. Friend. I have explained in reply that there is nothing I can do to help.

Mr. Henig: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on instructions from an oil company, somebody has been digging up the bed of the River Lune? The result of this is that Mr. Smith's fishing rights


have been interfered with and his livelihood endangered. Would the hon. Gentleman send down one of his officials to see how much damage has been done, to talk to Mr. Smith and see whether there is any way in which the Department can help?

Mr. Hoy: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that my fishery officers investigated on the spot when the complaint was first made in July, and again in November. My officials discussed it with the other Departments concerned and with the Lancashire River Authority. My Department was also consulted by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Power, which issued the necessary statutory consents. On top of all that, a public inquiry was held.

Beer (Prices)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he agreed to implement the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report No. 136 on Beer Prices increases by 2d. a pint within a few hours of the Report's publication; why he did not wait to allow public discussion on this report; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: My right hon. Friends and I were satisfied that, after a virtual standstill of three-and-a-half years in public bar prices, it was right to accept the board's clear-cut recommendation which was based on a detailed and convincing analysis. I therefore announced the Government's decision when the report was published, having first secured assurances from the brewers and licensees of a renewed standstill in public bar prices and of restraint over prices in other bars for a further year.

Mr. Lewis: Whilst appreciating that part of this increase has gone to the publicans, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell me how many of the big brewers have gone broke and how many of the brewers' profits have gone down? Can he also tell me how many have cut their dividends? Indeed, can he give me any good reason why the price should have gone up at all?

Mr. Hughes: I would not wish my hon. Friend to think that I am an advocate of the brewers. What I can

say is that the prices of beer in public bars in this country have been held stable for three-and-a-half years; that a case was made to the National Board for Prices and Incomes; that the board considered it for a period of months; that it considered that a good case was made and made recommendations; that the 2d. which was awarded was half what the brewers and licensees were asking. I thought that on balance it was a reasonable case.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not true that some of the smaller breweries have been in some difficulties and have had to be taken over by larger ones?

Mr. Hughes: I am only dealing with the situation as it is at present.

Fibreboard Packing (Price)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in the price of food he estimates will arise from the increase in the price of fibreboard packing.

Mr. Hoy: Any such increase would be negligible.

Mr. Eadie: Would my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about a large-scale industry associated with food? Would he undertake that if any suggestion of an increase comes before him he will make sure that it is justified, and not merely an excuse for greater profitability?

Mr. Hoy: We would certainly look carefully at it. It would be covered by the early warning arrangements.

Cereal and Meat Imports (Romania)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the value and tonnage of cereal imports from Romania in each of the next five years.

Mr. Hoy: While the total quantity and value of our cereal imports is reasonably stable, supplies from individual countries tend to vary widely from one year to another. It would not therefore be practicable to make an estimate relating to one country alone.

Mr. Kitson: is it not a fact that we have agreed to take payment for a £32 million irrigation scheme which has been


sold to Romania, through a consortium, in temperate foodstuffs?

Mr. Hoy: We have come to certain arrangements, and there are also certain private arrangements. As I was saying earlier, when I do not think the hon. Gentleman was here, trade is something that moves two ways.

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the value and tonnage of chilled meat imports from Romania in each of the next five years.

Mr. Hoy: I am not able to give detailed forecasts of meat imports from particular countries. In recent years Romania has sent us only small quantities of carcase meat. In 1968, for example, Romanian supplies represented less than one half of 1 per cent. of our total imports of all carcase meat and offal. The level of her supplies in future is not expected to increase to any significant extent.

Mr. Kitson: As we are taking payment for the £32 million irrigation scheme partly in chilled meat will the Minister watch this position very carefully, because if a large quantity comes in and the subsidy has to go up, how much better off are we?

Mr. Hoy: We are bound to keep a watch on all these things which take place when trade agreements are negotiated. I see no reason to fear that this will go on to any great extent. Obviously, in the course of deliveries one has to keep one's eye on things.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Short of increasing the total consumption on the home market, how does the taking in of extra meat from Romania tie up with an expansion programme at home?

Mr. Hoy: Hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that consumption will always be a fixed figure, but it is increasing. This is why we think there is room for an increase in our own production and a limited amount of imports.

Seals, Cornwall (Deaths)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what report he has received from his scientists in regard to the recent deaths

of seals off Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: Following a request from a local veterinary surgeon, my Department's Veterinary Investigation Laboratory at Truro undertook post mortems on several seal carcases washed ashore in Cornwall. Their diagnosis revealed a condition consistent with death from natural causes, notably starvation and septicaemia. There was no evidence of contamination with any toxic substances. The findings have been passed to the Natural Environment Research Council, whose seals unit has this matter in hand.

Mrs. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite these assurances, responsible observers are still convinced that there is something fishy about the seals and that this concern will not be allayed until a body with the standing of the Emergency Committee, co-ordinating Departments, has examined every aspect of the situation to establish whether pollution could have been in any way responsible and, if so, where it comes from?

Mr. Hoy: My hon. Friend should not be misled by reports which appeared in last weekend's Press. Investigations have proved that that report and what we have found, which is absolutely certified, have nothing in common. It is true that a scientist of the National Environmental Research Council has invesigated the death of the seals in the past few days, but I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the findings.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not rather strange that this happens at the same time as the vast numbers of deaths of birds and fishes?

Mr. Hoy: It is rather remarkable. Many of our scientists think that it has been a particularly bad time from a weather point of view, and that this may have had something to do with it.

Farming Industry (Expansion)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated additional cash flow required in order to cover the investment programme necessary for the expansion of the farming industry; and what rise in food prices would be involved.

Mr. John Mackie: It is not possible to forecast this precisely, but the resources needed by the industry are examined each year at the Annual Review.
Under the present support system extra investment does not necessarily entail higher rood prices.

Mr. Rankin: I am glad to hear that final statement. Do I take it that my hon. Friend is telling us now that any money that will be given out in the farm review will not result in a rise in prices to the general public, who are already bearing large increases? Will he assure us that before any part of the grant is given to factory farmers the Government will make sure that they conform strictly to the regulations laid down by Parliament?

Mr. Mackie: As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, we do not lay down conditions to intensive farmers provided that they are carrying out their job in accordance with the codes of practice for farm animal welfare. As to the first part of the question, apart from milk there can be no direct increase in food prices from annual review awards provided that these are made an the basis of deficiency payments.

Mr. Godber: Would the Minister give us a clear assurance that there will be sufficient resources made available for the industry to carry out the investment and expansion programme about which he so often talks?

Mr. Mackie: This is a question for negotiation with the N.F.U., at the Annual Review. It is not easy to forecast. For instance if there was a big increase in cereals the money required would be nothing like the amounts required if there was a big increase in stock. We have not set specific targets.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Plasterboard (Supplies)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is satisfied that supplies of plasterboarding are sufficient; and what estimate he has made of the effect on building of recent price increases.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. John Silkin): There is no

shortage of plasterboard and none is foreseen. The recent price increase of 2d. a square yard corresponds to less than 30s. in respect of an average house.

Mr. Eadie: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how far the supply and price of plasterboard was aggravated by the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite, when in office, as a result of their bungling incompetence, produced a shortage of plasterboard which had a serious effect on the building industry?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful that I am not responsible for the sins of the Opposition when they were in Government. As for the present position, we have sufficient capacity, and the price increase will make very little difference to the price of an average house, I am glad to say.

New Prison Building (Materials)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will give an assurance that nothing but British materials wil be used in the proposed £60 million building programme for new prisons.

Mr. John Silkin: My Department follows the Government's policy of using British products wherever possible and when on a balance of considerations, including quality, design, delivery and cost, they are as good as or better than imported products.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In such a British institution, does the Minister think it would be a comfort to the prison population if they did not upset the balance of payments?

Mr. Silkin: I am sure that point will be taken into account by all concerned.

GREATER LONDON DEVELOPMENT PLAN (INQUIRY)

The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. The Greater London Council, as the strategic planning authority for Greater London, formally submitted their Greater London Development Plan to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in August.
This plan sets out a series of strategic policies and proposals for the future development of London, covering population, housing, employment, roads, transportation, areas for comprehensive development and other matters of strategic significance.
The plan is comprehensive, complex and controversial. There has been much argument, in particular, about the motorway proposals and their possible impact on the urban environment. The objections to the plan now total 20,000; most of them are directed against the road proposals. The Government believe that so important a plan must be subject to the most rigorous and searching scrutiny. I know that the Greater London Council would welcome this.
In the case of the L.C.C. County of London Development Plan in 1952, to which there were 6,700 objections, the statutory inquiry was handled by a panel of inspectors from the Ministry of Housing. On this occasion, without casting any reflection on the acknowledged competence and impartiality of the Ministry Inspectorate, the Government believe that we need special arrangements for the statutory inquiry.
To this end I propose, first, that the inquiry should be conducted by an independent chairman of high standing and repute; secondly, that he should be assisted by a panel including an independent transportation expert and an independent planner, together with sufficient Ministry inspectors and others to enable the inquiry to be conducted efficiently, expertly and expeditiously; and, thirdly, that the panel should, in addition, be assisted by a number of outside assessors to help them probe and evaluate, fully and searchingly, the policies embodied in the plan, the objections made to them and possible alternative strategies.
I am sure that the G.L.C. and other parties to the inquiry, will readily provide such supplementary material as the panel may require for evaluating the proposals in the plan. I consider it essential, however, that, if it should prove necessary, the chairman of the inquiry should have the right to ask the Government to commission any additional research

which he considers necessary for the proper completion of his task.
There will be an announcement later of the names of the chairman and the outside members of the panel appointed by the Minister of Housing, and also of the date for the opening of the inquiry, which is unlikely to be before next July.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition welcome his decision to have an inquiry of this nature into what must be one of the most important projects and plans facing this country? We particularly welcome his decision to appoint a chairman of high standing and repute who is independent of any of the basic interests in this case. We wish the inquiry every possible success and good speed.

Mr. Jay: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the inquiry he proposes will be equivalent in character and procedure to a planning inquiry commission? That was not entirely clear from what he said. If so, many thousands of people in London will be grateful to him for responding to the cogent arguments which have been put to him in recent months.

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. This is not a planning inquiry commission, because under the 1968 Act it would have been impossible to set up such a commission for this purpose. The 1968 Act laid down that a commission was for the purpose of dealing with individual planning questions and not with general strategies such as there are in the London Development Plan. But I hope that my right hon. Friend will judge from my statement that this form of inquiry will be fully adequate to achieve the end in view, which is a full and searching examination.

Mr. Sandys: I welcome the Minister's announcement. However, would he explain whether this independent inquiry will have the same sort of status and scope as the Stansted Airport inquiry? Can he assure us that its terms of reference will enable it not only to hear the objections, but be free to examine in the broadest sense alternative and different solutions to the traffic problem, including, the improvement of public transport?

Mr. Crosland: This is not the equivalent of a Stansted commission,


because that was a non-statutory commission and this is a statutory commission, as we are bound to have under the Act. We have no alternative but to set up a statutory commission. However, the competence and status of the commission, as opposed to its statutory character, will be fully the equal of the power and status of the Stansted Commission.
Although the panel will not be able to produce an entire alternative London plan—that would take 15 years and require thousands of staff—it will certainly be able, on transport policies, for example, to produce alternative proposals embodying different balances between different parts of the transport proposals.

Mr. Marsh: Would my right hon. Friend give some indication of the terms of reference of the inquiry? Would he confirm that, in the light of the disastrous attitude of the Greater London Council towards public transport, the inquiry will be able to insist on alternative forms and that the Government will make the council's acceptance of a proper public transport system in London conditional on their acceptance of the proposals?

Mr. Crosland: The terms of reference are the normal terms of reference of a statutory inquiry set up to inquire into a development plan under the London Government Act, 1963. My right hon. Friend expressed certain judgments. I, having just announced an inquiry into the matter, would prefer not to express any judgments myself.

Mr. Lubbock: As it will be an enormous, lengthy and costly procedure for the panel to sift through 20,000 objections, together with the further thousands which may be received between now and July, when the panel begins its work, will the right hon. Gentleman consider telling the Greater London Council that it would be better if it scrapped this plan and started again from the beginning?

Mr. Crosland: Sifting objections is undoubtedly a formidable task, because of the great numbers involved, but the resources of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will be available to assist. We could not reject the plan. Our function under the Act, which we are now carrying out, is to set up a proper form of inquiry into the matter.

Mr. Macdonald: Who will be able to appear before this inquiry? Will it be confined to local councils and statutory bodies, or will individuals and residents' associations be able to appear? Will they be able to be represented? Is it yet known when they may apply to appear?

Mr. Crosland: Individuals, residents' associations, and so on, may appear. They may or may not be represented as they wish. However, I should like to emphasise that we do not wish this inquiry to become a great battle between heavily gunned legal protagonists. I hope that its character will be more informal than that. It would be better for people to wait until we have appointed the chairman and members of the Panel before applying to appear; and perhaps they will give us a month or two before doing so.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If the assumption be correct that it will be necessary for there to be concurrent sessions of this panel of inspectors, does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate at least one independent member sitting on each court, or committee, of the inquiry, there being only one independent chairman? Secondly, is it proposed, arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's new co-ordinating capacity or otherwise, to revise the procedures for statutory confirmation under the Town and Country Planning Acts?

Mr. Crosland: It is not intended to revise the procedures. They will be followed in future as they are now, namely, when the panel reports to the Government the Government can reject or accept the plan or accept it with modifications, which would no doubt be subject to a second inquiry.
On the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, we must leave the procedure of the panel until the 20,000 objections have been more thoroughly sifted and I have discussed the matter with the chairman.

Mr. John Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of this plan both creates and confirms very large areas of planning blight in London and that my own local authority, Lambeth, which is Conservative-controlled, seems blatantly to have ignored the Minister's


advice in Circular 15/69 to deal sympathetically with cases of hardship? Would he institute the most rigorous inquiries into authorities which do not accept his advice and offers of loan sanctions?

Mr. Crosland: That is a different question which I will discuss with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Goodhart: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the inquiry will be fully independent, but will he bear in mind that many people with property along the route of Ringway 2 have been semi-blighted by the plans? Can he give an estimate of how long the inquiry will take, because speed is of great importance to these people?

Mr. Crosland: I am very conscious of the problem of blight; we all are. It is impossible at this stage to give a firm answer on the question of the length of time that the inquiry will take. That must depend on further analysis of the character of the objections. It must also wait until we have discussed the matter with the chairman. I prefer not to set a definite date.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend said that there have been 20,000 objections. May I take it that he means "so far"? It is right, is it not, that there is still time for objections to be made and that the hundreds of thousands of people who still want to object are now invited to do so?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend, who is so well informed in these matters, will know that the closing date for objections to be received was yesterday. Nevertheless, on this, as on other matters, we shall adopt a commonsense and flexible approach to objections which may be made later.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish, with permission, to make a personal statement, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) has drawn my attention to the fact that during my speech on 8th December I referred to him in column 103 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That was a

mistake in constituency identification. I intended to refer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett).
I apologise for the error, which, I hope, has embarrassed neither hon. Gentleman. I am glad of the opportunity to have it corrected.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. You, Mr. Speaker, will remember that I was in the middle of a supplementary question to Question No. 12 when you interrupted me. At that stage, I did not think that I had said anything, and I am now satisfied that I had not said anything, which was out of order. You said that the point would arise on Question No. 35. I rose repeatedly when Question No. 35 was being dealt with, hoping that I would be able to put my supplementary question on Question No. 35 which you had suggested was relevant when I was trying to put it on Question No. 12.
I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to look at HANSARD tomorrow and to tell me where I was out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman at once. The Question on which he sought first to ask a supplementary question was on food. He wished to ask a supplementary question on the increase in the price of beer. Question No. 35 was about beer. It is not in order for an hon. Member, and it would be unfair if the Chair allowed an hon. Member, to anticipate another hon. Gentleman's Question by a supplementary question.

Mr. Fernyhough: I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that you might look at HANSARD, because Question No. 12 dealt with every increase which has been approved by the Ministry this year. I wished merely to ask about an increase which had been approved by the Ministry. Therefore, I cannot see that I could possibly have been out of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not need at this moment the help of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) made a point about food in general, it would


have been all right. If he made a point about beer, he was anticipating the Question which an hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to table.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. With great respect, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is right on the first point. But, even if he fails on that, surely he must be in order on the second point. While no promise was given, there was at least an inference which was understood by all of my hon. Friends present that my hon. Friend would be allowed to get in on my Question No. 35. With great respect, you, Mr. Speaker, knew then that his question was to do with beer and that Question No. 35 was to do with beer. It was obviously thought that he would be able to put his question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Jarrow is grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for coming to his defence. There is no absolute right to put a supplementary question. But I would have called the hon. Member for Jarrow had I noticed him.

Mr. Woodburn: Would you clear up one point Mr. Speaker? Are you ruling that beer is not a food? Some people regard it as a liquid form of food.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman had been here at Question Time, he would have heard me refuse to rule on this very erudite question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. McBride.]

COMMON MARKET REFERENDUM

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the electors of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the right to decide by way of referendum whether Great Britain should enter the European Economic Community.
I submit that legislation of this kind is necessary because without it the people of Britain, who have never been consulted on this important issue, will never be consulted. The three major political parties have all declared themselves to be in favour of this country joining the Common Market. It therefore follows that this question will never be an election issue and the people will have absolutely no chance of ever being able to express their views on it through the ballot box at a General Election.
The decision whether we should enter the Common Market is perhaps one of the most important and most irrevocable decisions which Parliament is ever likely to be called upon to make. It will, for good or ill, affect the future prosperity of Britain for the whole of her foreseeable future. It will have personal repercussions, good or bad, upon all our people. But, most important, it is a decision which, for good or ill, will result in Britain ceasing to be the completely sovereign State which she has hitherto been because she will be required to shed at least part of her independence.
The extent to which Britain would forfeit some of her sovereignty is a matter of dispute and will depend upon how the Community develops. But nobody can deny that in some respects she will cease to be a completely sovereign Power. For any Government to take this drastic and irrevocable step without allowing the people, either directly or indirectly, to express their views would be a negation of democracy.
Not only have the people never been consulted on this issue: they have never been properly informed about it. Although all three political parties—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot take a referendum now.

Mr. Campbell: Although all three political parties are in agreement—perhaps because they are all in agreement—nobody has ever taken the trouble to explain to the people in detail why it is to their advantage to join the Common Market. Nobody has ever explained to them what the consequences would be and nobody has ever told them what would be the cost.
If, however, it should become the law, as I wish it to be, that entry into the Common Market must depend upon the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box, perhaps the interested parties, anxious to win votes, will take the trouble to explain to the people what is involved, so that the people can weigh the pros and cons and reach a considered judgment. What I propose is that negotiations should by all means proceed, but that when the argument is over, and we have got the best terms we can for entry, then, and before Parliament ratifies any agreement, the people should be asked to say whether, on those terms, we should join the Community.
It will, I suppose, be argued that it is not our way to decide major issues by referendum and that this is not the traditional way in which the country is governed. Everybody would agree that government by referendum is for special occasions only. This, however, is a special occasion. Parliament has seldom had to consider such a grave issue and has never before had to consider surrendering part of its sovereignty to another Power.
If we were a Parliament which had been elected at an election where this had been the principal issue, perhaps a referendum would be unnecessary, but there is no possibility of its ever being an election issue. When the question was whether sovereignty over Gibraltar should be with Britain or with Spain—

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order. Is it not the rule of the House, Mr. Speaker, that an hon. Member who seeks leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule should not stray on to the merits of the Bill or make a Second Reading speech upon it?

Mr. Speaker: That is a most extraordinary suggestion from the hon. Member.

Mr. Campbell: When the question was whether the sovereignty of Gibraltar should be with Britain or with Spain, we thought it right to let the people of Gibraltar express their views in a referendum. When discussing the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, the Government have repeatedly assured us that nothing will be done which is contrary to the wishes of the people of those islands. Surely, therefore, when reaching the all-important decision whether Britain should enter the Common Market, a question which involves, at least to some extent, the sovereignty over these islands, the wishes of our people ought also to be taken into account.
The issue can be put before the people in a simple and concise form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It may be difficult to decide which answer to give, but in the end the answer must be "Yes" or "No". It is a unique situation which lends itself perfectly to a decision by way of referendum.
Surely, at least, we can give the question of the taking of a referendum an airing. Let it be debated upon the Second Reading of my Bill. Whatever view hon. Members may take about the wisdom of referenda generally, however, they will probably agree, when all the debate is over, that the question of the Common Market is such a special and unique question, and the decision so important and irrevocable, that it at least is something which ought properly to be decided by this means.
The people want to decide this matter—

Hon. Members: Time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Campbell: The people are discussing it up and down the land every day. They want the opportunity to express their views. If they are to be deprived of that opportunity, they will resent the fact. For Parliament to tell those people that while they may have their views, they will not have any chance of expressing them and that this momentous decision will be taken by Members of Parliament alone, regardless of the opinions of the people, would be a piece of unforgivable arrogance.
By the Licensing Act, 1964—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Member that he is seeking leave under the Ten-Minute Rule.

Mr. Campbell: I will be less than one more Minute, Mr. Speaker. I only want to remind the House that by the Licensing Act, 1964, we gave the people of Wales the right to decide by referendum whether their public houses should be open on Sundays. On this vastly more important issue, cannot we give the people of Britain the ordinary democratic right to decide upon their future, a right which will certainly be denied to them unless there is a referendum?

3.59 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to oppose?

Mr. Shinwell: Unacquainted as I am with the procedure of the House, I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether what I am about to say is in order. Ordinarily, when a Motion of this kind is presented to the House, an opposition Member, from either side, can address the House, but only if he seeks to oppose the proposed Bill. I am not quite sure whether what I am about to say is in opposition to the hon. and learned Member's Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it should not be in opposition, I will have to ask the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Shinwell: I would not be presented with any difficulty in opposing the Motion, for this reason. The only reason I would oppose is because of the sharp practice engaged in by a certain hon. Member opposite—I describe him as an hon. Member, because that is the customary method of describing a Member of the House—who sought to monopolise the presentation of Bills under the Ten-Minute Rule. For that reason, I would be tempted to oppose the Bill.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I understand that there has been some objection on this side of the House because of the length of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) in presenting his case, and I believe that an interjection came from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who,

on one occasion, spoke for two hours in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a little wide of the topic which we are discussing.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very easily provoked, Mr. Speaker.
There are sound reasons why the House should accept this proposition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may not support the application. He can only oppose it.

Mr. Shinwell: I am going to make a submissions to you, Mr. Speaker, showing how difficult it is to implement this proposal. I am all in favour of it, but I recognise how difficult it is to carry it into practice.
For example, both sides of the House—I mean, both Front Benches, with hon. and right hon. exceptions—are agreed on this subject of British entry into the Common Market. They have been in loving embrace for some time. In fact, as I remarked on a previous occasion, when it comes to the two Front Benches and a matter of this sort, an issue of this kind, one "cannot tell Stork from butter". That really is the case. The two Front Benches would oppose the referendum and would prevent its implementation.
Besides, there are the various polls undertaken by various newspapers in the country. When they initiate these polls what are the questions which they ask? The sort of question addressed to a lady, an elderly or a very young lady, a young man or old man, at the door, is, "Are you in favour of Britain entering the Common Market?" Well, they do not know what it is about. Some old ladies think that it is something to do with the nearby supermarket. That is how they understand it, but that is the sort of question which is addressed to them.
This is the difficulty about a referendum of this kind: what kind of question will be asked? "Are you in favour of entry into the Common Market?" That is the interrogation addressed to somebody on the street—near an employment exchange perhaps, and there are far too many going to employment exchanges to look for work at present—and there will be far more if we enter the Common


Market, because there will be unlimited irrational entering into this country of foreign labour, for that is one of the main provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
I do not want to enter into the merits of the case. It just occurs to me that these are matters of some concern to the people of this country. Consider the polls. These are the kinds of questions which are asked. It is very difficult to answer them.
The best way to deal with the matter is by a referendum. I agree that it is very difficult to decide what is to be the nature of the questions to be addressed to the people, to the electors, but what is the alternative? The alternative is for the Government, our Government, the Labour Government, or another Government, although another Government is improbable for a very long time, so it is for this Government to go to the electors. Excuse the political allusion. I could not refrain from mentioning it. They appeal to the country upon a lengthy programme considered by a previous Labour Party conference.
Of course, they do not take any notice of what Labour Party conferences say, but, at any rate, they generally take note of what they say, and make submissions to the electorate, but they are all jumbled up—for example, the question whether we should enter the Common Market, whether we should continue with the prices and incomes policy, or whether we should proceed with the Redcliffe-Maud Report. A variety of considerations is presented to the electors, and they cannot make up their minds what they are going to vote for.
If it happens that the Tory Party should be in power, what kind of questions would it submit to the electors alternatively? The kind of question the Tories would ask would be—the record of the Government, instead of a policy of their own, for they have not a policy, anyhow. That is the sort of submission they would make to the electors.

There is not a very rational alternative to a referendum. For example—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has now argued himself into support of the Motion he is supposed to be opposing.

Mr. Shinwell: I am presenting some of the difficulties and I am proving how difficult it is to implement the referendum proposal, but there are advantages in this proposal. I am bound to say this, that much as I doubt whether it is possible to implement it effectively, if the hon. Gentleman divides the House I am going into the Lobby with him.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I suspected, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has argued himself into the position where he is entirely in favour of the Motion and is out of order.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. As the right hon. Gentleman has spent 10 minutes supporting the Motion, and we are in the Opposition's Supply time, I wonder whether you will allow another 10 minute speech to be made opposing the Motion, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: When I rule on order I do not take into consideration whether it is Conservative Supply time, or Liberal time, or Government time. The rule is, one speech for, one speech against. The speech against, for some strange reason, became a speech for; but that is no business of mine.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 160.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[4.7 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Baxter, William
Bullus, Sir Eric
Farr, John


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Costain, A. P.
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Goodhart, Philip


Black, Sir Cyril
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Goodhew, Victor


Body, Richard
Drayson, G. B.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Gurden, Harold




Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Tuck, Raphael


Hobden, Dennis
Manuel, Archie
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weatherill, Bernard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Lewis, Arthur (W, Ham, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Run (Carlisle)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor and


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Mr. Bruce Campbell.


Macdonald, A. H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Neal, Harold


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
O'Halloran, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Ford, Ben
(tram, Albert E.


Allen, Scholefield
Forrester, John
Orbach, Maurice


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Fowler, Gerry
Oswald, Thomas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ginsburg, David
Pardoe, John


Bagler, Cordon A. T.
Golding, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Barnes, Michael
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Pavitt, Laurence


Barnett, Joel
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bence, Cyril
Gregory, Arnold
Pentland, Norman


Bidwell, Sydney
Gresham Cooke, R.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Binns, John
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bishop, E, S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Price, William (Rugby)


Boyden, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William
Pym, Francis


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Randall, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Haseldine, Norman
Rankin, John


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


BuChanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooley, Frank
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Royle, Anthony


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Sheldon, Robert


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Slater, Joseph


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ednyted Hudson (Conway)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (stretford)
Jopling, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kenyon, Clifford
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Latham, Arthur
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dell, Edmund
Lee, John (Reading)
Wallace, George


Dempsey James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dewar, Donald
Lubbock, Eric
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dickens, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Wiggin, A. W.


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Wilkins, W. A.


Eden, Sir John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ellis, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Winstanley, Dr. M, P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Woof, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Mapp, Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth



Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Finch, Harold
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer and


Filch, Alan (Wigan)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Stanley Henig.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY], considered

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. Speaker: May I announce that I have selected the Amendments in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends to each of the two Motions of the Opposition on the Order Paper.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the development of schemes for private health insurance.
I take the opposite view on this subject to that taken by the Secretary of State for Social Services in his pamphlet which has recently been the subject of a good deal of publicity, and I quarrel, therefore, with the spirit of the Amendment, however similar the wording has been made at least to seem to that of the Motion.
First, may I regret the absence of the Secretary of State and, still more, the illness which I understand is its cause. I hope that he will soon be better. I think, however, that he must be improving, for I detect his rather devious mind in the subtleties of semantics of the Government's Amendment, which is, of course, literally true; but how true depends on the meaning one attaches to the words "adequate alternative", and whether they imply "sole". The omission from the Amendment of the phrase of welcome in the Motion totally reverses the implication of the wording of the Motion.
We have a more than adequate substitute in the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales. He may not have quite the same capacity for obscuring the issue behind analytical skill and force of destructive criticism, but he is certainly equal in wit and charm, and I have no doubt that he will be just as successful in his attempts to divert the House from the realities of

the problems, and will have the same capacity to avoid awkward facts and unanswered questions.
I hope that he can be firm and definite on the Government's attitude to private practice in general. Any doubts which may have been expressed about the growth of private insurance schemes can be doubts only about the rôle of private practice in the care of the nation's health. We on this side of the House have no doubt about this, and I recall the words of the late Aneurin Bevan:
If people wish to pay for additional amenities, or something to which they attach value, like privacy in a single ward, we ought to aim at providing such facilities for everyone who wants them.
There are many reasons why people wish for this extra convenience. They may wish to choose more nearly the time of an operation which may require medical urgency; and I hope that the House would reject the idea that such priorities should be given to people solely because of the alleged importance of their standing or status in the world, official or otherwise. Surely the reasons which were valid in 1946 are still more valid now when, private insurance schemes have enabled more people who want additional amenities to get them. In 1946, a relatively small number of people could afford, either directly or through insurance, expenditure on medical care. That number is now growing, and we welcome it.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has said, and we have no reason to doubt his accuracy, that about 60 per cent. of private patients use National Health Service hospitals. There is evidence of growing demand for these additional amenities which people value. Yet in 1967 the review of pay-beds in National Health Service hospitals reduced them from 5,764 to 4,370. This was despite the provisions of the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968, which made more effective use of beds by altering the arrangements by which previously they were set aside for specialities, anti despite the absolute rule that such pay beds should be allocated for medical priority if there was any medical need over-riding the amenity need.
Private practice, as well as being of great service to the patient, is a service to the profession. Again, I would quote


the late Aneurin Bevan, when he said in the House:
Specialists in hospitals will be allowed to have fee-paying patients. I know this is criticised and I sympathise with some of the reasons for the criticism, but we are driven inevitably to this fact, that unless we permit some fee-paying patients into public hospitals there will be a rash of nursing homes all over the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 57.]
I have no doubt of the value of private practice not only to the pockets and standard of living of the profession, but also to their general conditions of service and way of life.
Britain, rightly, is regarded as a centre of medical advance. Our teaching hospitals are unrivalled and large numbers of people come here from abroad, most of them as private patients. I cannot help feeling that they not only add to our invisible earnings, but also to our reputation and to the experience and capacity of our doctors to serve our own people.
Perhaps the most important side of private practice so far as it concerns the medical profession is that without private practice the career structure and rewards for doctors and surgeons and specialists is lamentable. The British Medical Journal, as far back as May, 1967, in a supplement reprinting the annual report of the council, said, in the first paragraph:
Never before have hospital doctors been so disenchanted with conditions of practice…
No one can pretend that those conditions have improved since, or that that disenchantment has lifted. This can be seen in the emigration figures, with 350 doctors leaving the country every year.
The Times, in an article on 1st December, said:
If private fees persuade a doctor who would otherwise have gone overseas to continue in practice here, everyone gains…
That proposition cannot be seriously contradicted. If the alternative of the medical profession to the encouragement of private practice is, as the only possible alternative must be, the establishment of a purely State-salaried service, it has as something to look forward to the situation of teachers and nurses. The State, alas, has not a reputation either for paying its servants well or for developing the best career structures.
The Secretary of State, in his pamphlet "Paying for the Social Services", said, on page 8:
In an organised service like our National Health Service priorities of medical need can be made to over-ride the priorities of the market place and costs can be kept within the capacity of the nation to pay.
That does not provide much cheer to doctors and consultations if it means, as the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) said in a recent article, that we are getting doctors on the cheap.
Finally, private practice has given help on a considerable scale to the National Health Service. This is shown by the number of hospitals and institutions of one sort or another, amounting to 152, in the Association of Independent Hospitals, which provides over 10,000 beds for in-patients, caters for the treatment of 370,000 patients, and was responsible for six general nursing-training schools, three psychiatric nursing-training schools and three enrolled nurse-training schools. This relates to 1966, the last year for which I could obtain accurate figures.
This effort can be said to make a significant contribution to the health care of the nation, but cannot be said to be causing a rising diversion of resources. In fact, half the Health Service resources are required for the terminal care of patients and care of long-stay patients. This is not an area in which the types of institutions I have mentioned trespass at all. Private insurance is concerned mostly with the acute side of health care. The more private resources devoted to this the more is available from the taxpayer to improve what must always be, and can only be, taxed finance devoted to the care of long-stay patients, the mentally subnormal, the mentally sick and terminal cases.
Some changes have taken place over the past years. It is true to say that the size, scope and range in which private practice and private health insurance operates within the nation's health care has increased to an extent which perhaps might be worrying the Secretary of State for Social Services and some of his Friends. In the old days these facilities were open to only a few, but the private insurance schemes have opened the door to many more people to obtain the amenities they want and the amenities


they value at a relatively low cost to themselves.
In the light of this contribution I am moving this Motion. We reject the Secretary of State's idea that the unplanned growth of private pension schemes is a disturbing element within the Health Service. This idea has the implication that the growth of these schemes, and the schemes themselves, should be controlled or limited and hence, by inference, so should private practice rather than, as I would suggest, that they must be taken into account as an element in the development of health care. In this attitude the Secretary of State and the Government show a negative point of view similar to that which they have developed over charges.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the attitude of us who are concerned about this matter. We are not worried about the larger number of people getting something they want. We are concerned that this might have a bad effect on the Health Service.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own points, later, perhaps. Our time has already been grossly reduced, and I should like to make my own points in my own way.
This negative attitude is seen in the use of charges to prevent the growth of demand rather than to increase the amount of resources available. Incidentally, the Secretary of State, in his pamphlet, justified the charges on teeth and spectacles on the ground that they would be paid by people who would be in work and earning. So are the B.U.P.A. contributions and, indeed, all forms of insurance which are of great value to ordinary people.
It would be fair to say that the analysis of the great problem of the Health Service, which is one of paying for the Service, is valid, and, so far as it goes, accurate. Of course, it is true that the Service creates the demand. Of course, one can say that in tracing price rises and other costs there are many reasons why its cost goes up. It is because of greater activity, but also because of big advances and because doctors can do more for people than they could do before.
The Secretary of State is also right in saying that savings which can be got from greater efficiency are not enough. The faster we build new hospitals the greater are the running costs because of the better service which they can give. This problem of an open-ended demand and limited resources is not confined to the Health Service alone. We have it in pensions, in houses and in education. Yet the Health Service is the only one where the partnership of public and private effort is criticised both directly and, even more, by implication.
It is the Health Service which perhaps is in the greatest need of extra funds—about another £500 million a year if we are to keep the standard to what it should be. The increase in the last 10 years in private schemes shows the scale of the problem and the size of the demand. Nearly 2 million people are now covered by private insurance schemes, and possibly another 2 million actually use private practice without being insured. It is absurd to suggest that this presents a serious diversion of resources from the Health Service. At the very most it is under 8 per cent. of the population.
It is equally absurd to suggest that this presents a fear for the future. It does so only if we have given up hope of getting more resources into the Health Service and if we are to be content to run the service permanently starved of resources. I think that this aspect is worrying, especially with reference to capital development. Figures show that about 25 per cent. of total Government spending is on capital development and 75 per cent. on current, but in the Health Service it is only about 6¼ per cent. Perhaps that is why we have such a great need for new hospitals, particularly for long-stay patients.
The Government have no proposals to make, except patching-up proposals. They appear to have no ideas. We have not yet heard from the Secretary of State about the reallocation of resources. There seems to be no fundamental thinking about the future and there is still confusion about priorities of different aspects of the social services system. Certainly, there is no suggestion as to new resources.
The Secretary of State suggested that contributions could be raised. Of course


they can, but that is not a new resources; it is taxation; and a tax is still a tax, even if it is called a contribution. A contribution paid by the employers adds just as much to the price of goods as a value-added tax or any other form of indirect taxation. The Government appear to have lost faith in their 1964 panacea, the policy to improve the Health Service by the rate of growth. Figures again show that whereas from 1964–65 to 1968–69 expenditure on health and welfare went up by 3·9 per cent. a year, the forecast for 1968–69 to 1971–72 shows no change at all, except a very small drop, 0·1 per cent.
Whatever growth of the economy and whatever savings can be made in administration and the better use of resources by increased efficiency, it will not be enough. I should be out of order in developing a discussion on Health Service finance, but there is a point of the argument which is relevant because failure to comprehend it has led to misjudging the rôle of private insurance schemes.
The functions of the Health Service can be divided into two. Using the same set of people, but providing a very different service, one could describe them, first, as the healing of the sick and the restoring of those who are ill to normal productive life, and, secondly, the care of the incurable and dying. It is this last part which puts the biggest burden on the service. It reduces the number of beds available from 1 per 100 to 1 per 400. This must be a charge which is a burden on the taxpayer and it must take a higher proportion of total resources devoted to the Health Service.
It is this which provides the strongest argument for encouraging private insurance, for if the taxpayers' contribution is confined to this half of the Health Service where it is the only reasonable source of finance and to subsidising need on the other side, then normal health, the sort of thing for which to use about half the Health Service and most of the private insurance schemes, becomes an insurable burden for ordinary people.
Figures show that, on average, people spend 12s. to 14s. per week on private schemes. This ties in with the work done on possibilities of public insurance schemes which work out at roughly the same level. Private insurance is not com-

prehensive, but it could be as various companies have worked out, if the number of people covered went up to 12 or 13 million. Insurance itself is not an impossible method of financing the acute side of health care, provided those in need are subsidised and those who cannot be covered by insurance remain, as now, society's responsibility and a proper burden on the taxpayer.
The premium is not by itself excessive although it could be made so by tying it to the so-called contribution, which is actually an indirect tax. It works out at the cost of about three packets of cigarettes a week. If some such scheme were developed and private insurance schemes were developed this would leave more for those who really need it in the care of the subnormal, the mentally sick and terminal illness.
It is absurd to regard the growth of private insurance schemes as a threat to the nation or to the Health Service. Even the Government's Amendment does not say that private insurance does not make any contribution, although it implies that it cannot make much more. I think that many Government supporters approve of the use of private insurance schemes. It is equally absurd to imply that these schemes will need limitation or that their growth needs control. Rather they should be used to help to increase the total resources devoted to health care and to enable the taxpayers' money to be concentrated where it is most needed.

4.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'noting the development of schemes for private health insurance, recognises that these cannot provide an adequate alternative to existing methods of financing a comprehensive health service'.
My right hon. and hon. Friends are very grateful to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) for his sympathetic remarks about the Secretary of State for Social Services. But I thought that his sympathy evaporated rather quickly and I shall, therefore, concentrate on the first part of the tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman is probably mindful that this is the first debate that we


have had on the Health Service and its financing in which I have taken part since the Welsh Office took over responsibility for the health services in Wales. I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, although I know that every hon. Member will wish my right hon. Friend a speedy recovery to full health. I am sure that his one anxiety is that he is not able to answer the hon. Gentleman today.
The National Health Service touches the life of every family in the country. At some time or another everyone comes in touch with the Health Service and this debate today is, therefore, of considerable interest in the country.
The Motion proposed by the hon. Gentleman was tabled following the Herbert Morrison Memorial Lecture given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. In that lecture, he discussed the question of private health insurance and the whole question of paying for the social services. The lecture followed very closely what my right hon. Friend said on 1st July, when the House was debating the financing of the National Health Service. On that occasion there was no exception taken to what my right hon. Friend said.
In the lecture, my right hon. Friend referred to the substantial increase in the cost of the Health Service and indicated that this would continue to grow despite the original assumption that by improving the health of the nation a comprehensive service would reduce the demand for medicine.
I think that we are all agreed as to why this has not proved to be the case. The general growth of population, the higher standard of health expected by people as a result of our higher standard of living, and the fact that the making available of services creates a demand for them, are all factors to be considered.
My right hon. Friend discussed what alternatives there were to taxation to meet the cost of the Service. His conclusion was that there is no viable alternative to the present methods of financing the Service.
In the year ended 30th June, 1968, I understand that the private schemes collected £14 million and paid out £12 million in benefits. I accept the figures

advanced by the hon. Gentleman about current membership, although it has not been possible for me to check them.
The advantages derived from these insurance schemes are that they enable people to pay the cost of private treatment, to be treated by the consultant of their choice at a time convenient to themselves and generally in conditions of privacy.
But supposing these private schemes were increased say, fourfold, in terms of scarce skills and scarce resources, such schemes solve nothing. They might provide a minor economy in the cost of the Health Service—£48 million if increased fourfold—out of our £1,600 million for hospitals and general medical services, but, clearly, they cannot provide an alternative to paying for the Service out of taxation.
With a limited supply of skilled manpower and resources any considerable expansion in the private sector of medicine is bound to mean that there will be less of these resources available to the Health Service. Similarly, if the private sector were to grow to such an extent that a considerable number of leading consultants, doctors and nurses were to withdraw from the Service and treat only private patients, it would no longer be possible to say that all our citizens, irrespective of means, were able to obtain the same standard of medical care, and thus the comprehensive Health Service would be effectively destroyed. This is a question of the right use of the resources within the Health Service.
Our first responsibility must be to see that there are adequate health services and that the availability of services shall be according to medical need and not according to ability to pay. The logic of the Opposition's case is that everyone able to join a private insurance scheme should do so, thus leaving only the very poor to be cared for by the Health Service. This is a philosophy and a policy which we reject completely.
The achievements of the Health Service have been substantial, and all of us who believe in it have reason to be proud. Against a 14 per cent. increase in population since the Service began and with little change in the number of beds, there has been an increase of over 70 per cent. in the number of in-patients


treated each year, a 40 per cent. increase in the numbers attending accident emergency departments and a 25 per cent. increase in the number of out-patients.
At the outset of the Service about 350,000 people were employed in it, but now there are over 700,000. Capital outlay spent annually on hospital building has increased from an original £10 million to something like £100 million per year.
I can understand the hesitancy of hon. Gentlemen in talking about the running costs of a new hospital because they do not have much experience in this regard. The experience is coming because of the policy which the Government are adopting.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: A good point.

Mr. Thomas: It is a good point. That is why I said it.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham paid me what I call a Dutch compliment. He said some kind words about me, and then said that I had a gift for making obscure the real facts. Now I am determined to lay before the House the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me, which is my common policy. I listened with care to the hon. Gentle man in case he had a new contribution to make. As he was so generous to me, I do not want to be unkind to him, so the best thing that I can do is move on.
The achievements of the Health Service have been substantial, and I know that we all accept that. Complete new hospitals have been built, and improvements to old ones are going on all the time. This is not to say that everything has yet been provided, for this is a long and substantial process, and a good deal remains to be done, but not, as I think will be clear from what I have said already, through finance raised by the relatively small resources of private medical insurance. To get this into its proper perspective, the House should know chat the number of private patients treated in our hospitals is about 2 per cent. of all the patients treated. The vast majority of people prefer the Health Service.
While there is still much to be done to improve the N.H.S. in replacement of old

hospitals and the more equal distribution of resources throughout the country, nevertheless the House should acknowledge that it provides a service second to none for the seriously ill patient. Urgent cases are admitted without undue delay, they receive expert attention, and all the resources of modern medicine, including recent technological developments, are at their disposal. In respect of comprehensive facilities we have a service unmatched by any other country, and certainly unmatched by anything that the private sector can offer.
But there is another side of the coin which I acknowledge. Because, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, 52 per cent. of all admissions are urgent or emergency cases, people with non-urgent but often highly inconvenient conditions find that they often have to wait for out-patient appointments, and still longer for admission. At the end of 1968, 534,890 patients were awaiting admission. This was a small reduction over the 1967 figures. Before the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) thinks that he has something to smack his lips about, let me tell him that this was the first recorded reduction in the waiting list since 1962. Of these, 78 per cent. were surgical patients. It is for such reasons that people find it worth their while to join private health insurance schemes.
Our aim is for a steady advance in the quality of our Health Service, and no one should underestimate the tremendous achievements in its first 20 years. Hospital medical staff had risen by 81 per cent. in 1968. The number of consultants has more than doubled, and in the three years from 1965 to 1968 the number of consultants rose by just over 9 per cent.
I am glad to tell the House that the proportion of all consultants who are full time is rising gradually from 31·8 per cent. in 1965 to 33·2 per cent. in 1968. In the main, this reflects choice by consultants themselves, because few posts are advertised on the basis that the holder must be whole time. By the more intensive use of available facilities, the number of operations performed in England and Wales has increased since 1961 by more than 21 per cent.
The difference between the Opposition and ourselves is not far to seek. They have never liked the Health Service. I


was a Member of the House when the Health Service was first initiated. In fact, several of my hon. Friends were here at the time, but I do not see anyone on the benches opposite who was present on that occasion.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle) rose—

Mr. Thomas: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will succeed in catching the eye of the Chair, because he will do greater justice to himself in a speech than in an interruption. I remember the vote against the Bill on Second Reading. We regard the service as having a major claim upon us. They believe that it is in the interests of the Health Service for us deliberately to encourage the growth of private health insurance schemes. That is the case that was advanced this afternoon. We put our emphasis on a continuing improvement in the Health Service itself.
This debate is really much ado about nothing, for I want to make it perfectly clear that no one in the Government is proposing, or has proposed, a withdrawal of the facilities at present provided for private practice.
In a leading article on this issue, the Daily Express said recently:
Individual choice is a vital element in a democracy.
I agree, and the Government agree, and there is no intention at all of interfering with individual choice in this matter.
I cannot help reflecting on the fact that the hon. Member for Farnham, and the noble Lord who will wind up the debate for the Opposition if he catches the eye of the Chair, as I expect he will, are both Old Etonians. It is not an offence to mention it, surely? They proudly wear the old school tie. They are rarely without it, although its influence is ever-diminishing. As they see the privilege of the old school tie disappearing in society today, it appears that their philosophy is to encourage privilege for those with the deepest purse. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman can do better than that."] I am trying very hard.
Now a kind word for the noble Lord the Member for Hertford. He is known, and I mean this most sincerely, as a man

of considerable compassion and concern for old people and the poor in our community. He is constantly at that Box reminding us of it, but the greater the encouragement that he gives to the growth of private schemes the more he is likely to damage the interests of those who cannot afford to pay.
Surely our ideal is that everyone who seeks the help of the Health Service shall feel that the very best that the country can give is available on the basis of need and not on the basis of ability to pay. The Health Service is not a charitable institution, but is paid for by all our people. If we are to be a civilised society we must make it our aim that the day shall come when no one shall feel that there is any advantage to be bought by private insurance, because the Service provides all that is desirable.
While we take note of the development of schemes for private health insurance, we on this side are convinced that they cannot and will not provide an adequate alternative to the existing method, by which we maintain the best comprehensive medical service in the world.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I always enjoy listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales, and I did so again today, even if he did not himself write that speech. I take it from his comment that he was doing his best that he did not write it. However, when he starts talking about the "old school tie", and so on, it makes me feel that I am in the Chamber in 1919 rather than in 1969. I have never heard such a ridiculous speech, with so much tremendously biased and prejudiced old-hat stuff. Someone must have dug it out of Transport House, and shaken the dust off it that had collected since 1919 or 1920. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could not have believed what he was saying—[Interruption.] I am not an Old Etonian, nor am I an Old Harrovian—and do not let us go through the whole list.
The Secretary of State shuffled from one argument to another trying to be all things to all men while still coming out with this great Socialist jingoism and anti-Tory feeling. He started talking about the danger of any extension of the private sector resulting in damage to


or contraction of the National Health Service. If he fears that, why did he later say that the vast majority of people preferred the service, because only 2 per cent. used private practice? If that is so, any attempts to expand private provision will fail—so what is all the fuss about? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Does his party take the view that private provision of housing or pensions is equally a danger to the national provision? Are he and his colleagues coming round finally to saying that the State should provide everything for everyone? If we are being told that at the next General Election they will say that no one should be allowed to provide his own housing or pensions or education—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They must have a principle somewhere amongst them—just one. It seems to me that they just dodge about, and say that in the case of the Health Service private practice is bad but that private provision in every other sphere is good.
The Government Amendment is one of the most negative I have seen in the Order Paper during the 10 years I have been a Member. It is difficult to see its object. The Government might just as well have left our Motion as it was and voted for it. It welcomes the development of private health insurance, and I should have thought that the Government, too, would have welcomed it.
Private provision injects into the health sector £13 million a year. The Government should not be dismayed at that. If people want to inject such sums as that into the nation's health services, the Government should welcome it. It is done by people already paying their dues for the Health Service, so they are not opting out of their obligations. As a result of this private provision, hospitals are established which provide additional beds.
Many doctors and consultants who might otherwise have emigrated have remained. Did the right hon. Gentleman read the article in The Times on 1st December? My hon. Friend quoted from it, and I shall do the same. It said:
Doctors are very conscious these days of being part of an international labour market. They know that there are lucrative posts available in Canada, the United States, and Australia, and the rate of emigration will

naturally be influenced by medical earnings in Britain. If private fees persuade a doctor who would otherwise have gone overseas to continue in practice here, everyone gains—provided that he devotes part of his time to the National Health Service and that he treats his National Health Service patients with proper professional care. If improved facilities, purchased with private money, can also be put at the service of N.H.S. patients so much the better. The closer the partnership between private and public medical care the greater the chance of private finance flowing into the bloodstream of British medicine.
That paper is not notoriously Right-wing Tory, or Monday Club, or anything like that. The majority of these doctors and consultants take their part in the Health Service as well, and there are many in the service today who would not be in it but for this private provision.
I am not as complacent about the Health Service as is the right hon. Gentleman, but we all recognise that it has achieved a great deal, though it must be realised that it also relies a great deal on this private provision. If it had to meet the requirements of those who are at present treated privately it would be under much greater strain.
The Secretary of State talked of the individual's right. What is wrong with the individual having the right to spend his own money as he wishes? My belief is that the Government should encourage private provision by tax relief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let them look at the whole public expenditure and see what it costs because they encourage people to lean on the State instead of providing for themselves. Tax relief for people in insurance schemes like this would cost less than providing the services that those people would otherwise use.
In any event, it is better to encourage individuals to provide for themselves than to lean on the State, because it produces a responsible society. Is the right hon. Gentleman so happy that today our society is very often seen to be somewhat irresponsible? How much of that is the result of people depending too much upon the State rather than accepting responsibility of providing for themselves and their families, and themselves having to order their own priorities of expenditure?
Right hon. and hon. Members laugh—I do not understand how they can. They are faced with expanding public expenditure in the years to come. They thank


God, will probably not have to look after that themselves, but any Government must face it. And this is at a time when the balance between the relatively rich and the relatively poor has so changed that we should be looking at the whole question of the Welfare State, and asking whether the assumptions of the 'forties, based on the conditions of the 'thirties, are tenable now.
One thing is certain, that we need people today to provide for themselves those things that they can, because only the Government can provide certain other things, like defence, police, and the law courts. So any Government should be anxious to encourage people to provide for themselves.
There is nothing wrong in anyone in this country deciding that he would prefer to use his money to buy for himself or his family privacy in a hospital, or special service such as he gets in a private hospital, rather than consumer goods or leisure pursuits. Is there anything dreadful in that? Would the right hon. Gentleman challenge the right of any father to say that he would prefer to spend his money on insurance so that his children or his wife can go into private accommodation, rather than blueing it on bingo or a new car, or both, or holidays abroad?
These are the decisions which people must make about their priorities. There is nothing wrong in people prefering to buy these things for their families rather than things which they regard as less important. Would not the Chancellor be glad to see more people spending money on this than on consumer goods? The right hon. Gentleman might ask him one day. There is nothing unfair in this and it is ridiculous for hon. Gentlemen opposite to pretend that people with this sense of responsibility should be prevented from exercising it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Hon. Members may disagree, but the general tenor of their remarks is that any expansion in this field must be prevented at any cost. Anyone who prefers to spend money on health insurance, pensions, housing or education should be encouraged to do so, rather than condemned for it.
It is the party opposite who, in its whole approach to this debate, condemns people who wish to do that instead

of encouraging them. This is Socialism at its worst. It is the idea, which we have heard here before, "If we cannot all afford to go to the Ritz, nobody should be allowed to do so. If some people are profligate and prefer to waste their money on less essential things and then lean on the State, we must not allow other people to provide these things for themselves for fear of showing them up".
It was Nicholas Murray Butler who wrote:
False democracy shouts—Every man down to the level of the average. True democracy cries—All men up to the height of their fullest capacity for service and achievement.
It is the party opposite who, in this as in practically every other matter which comes before the House, shows itself in favour of false democracy rather than true democracy. This is why, when the time comes, the electorate will reject it once more, as they have in recent by-elections.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). His speech had a refreshingly light-hearted side to it, but I hope that he will not expect me to take it seriously or follow him too closely. In some respects, he is pushing against an open door when he says that we on this side should be more agreeable towards private practice. No one, on either side, seriously questions the right of anyone to spend money as he thinks fit, provided that it is not contrary to the public interest. Obviously, there are occasions when people require privacy, or want treatment at a special time, or have a particular desire to choose their own consultant. It is reasonable and proper that they should, therefore, spend money on this as they think fit.
Both sides of the House, and perhaps particularly my right hon. Friend, should appreciate that private practice is of some substantial advantage to the National Health Service, in that it is an additional emolument for consultants which costs public funds nothing. This should be remembered.
We should also remember that there is, in effect, an open market on consultants' services. These private insurance schemes, in effect, are concerned only


with consultants' services. There are no private schemes—or hardly any—for general practitioners' services. Obviously, they would be unworkable. In terms of a market, a London hospital consultant who sees a patient privately in his rooms in Harley Street or Wimpole Street will get 10 10s. for a half-hour consultation. If he is a surgeon, that is more than he will get for operating the whole afternoon in his teaching hospital, presuming that he gets even a higher rate of pay.
So, if one accepts that there is an open market for consultants' services, there is no doubt that private practice adds massively to the emoluments of consultants at a very small cost to public funds.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Does my hon. Friend say that a consultant surgeon with an "A" merit award, working in a London teaching hospital, gets only £10 a session?

Mr. Cronin: Approximately in that case it could be about £15. The basic fact is that, in half an hour, he can make roughly the same amount just by seeing a private patient as by a whole afternoon's onerous and heavy work in the operating theatre. I beg my hon. Friend to beat in mind that I have been in this situation, or, rather, in similar situations, so I know at least as much as he about the economics of the situation.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Would it be true that a consultant, out of his fees, must pay rent and assistants and many other things which do not apply in the other case?

Mr. Cronin: This is true, but, if one takes the net figure there is no doubt that private practice enormously increases consultants' emoluments and, therefore, is a force which keeps him working for the Health Service at what is, in effect, a reduced standard of emoluments by the service. We should also remember that this is an international market. About 20 per cent. of doctors every year go to work in the United States and the Commonwealth countries. Again, private practice is unquestionably an inducement to them to stay here.
We should be clear in our minds that private practice is not, in itself, an evil

force in the treatment of health, but it can be abused. For that reason, the Secretary of State for Social Services is well advised to suggest that there should be some inquiry into the effect of private practice on the Health Service. There are various ways in which it can impinge on people. First of all, it is not an uncommon practice for a consultant to see a patient privately who needs an operation and is on a waiting list.
These waiting lists are under the control of consultants. They decide which patient shall come in first. It would be contrary to human nature if a consultant did not have some feeling of indulgence towards a person who had seen him privately, even if he takes the strictest view of a person's priorities from a medical aspect. Inquiries should be made into that matter. I do not suggest for one moment that it is a widespread abuse, but it is a potential abuse.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Does not the hon. Member agree that this is a relative question? In the hospitals in Suffolk the waiting lists are six months for appointments with E.N.T. specialists and four months for appointments with orthopaedic specialists—and I refer to appointments and not to operations. In considering how private practice impinges on the Health Service. we must look at the reverse, too.

Mr. Cronin: I accept the point.
The next important question concerns the extent to which a consultant's energies and time are diverted by private practice. A large proportion of consultants do a maximum number of part-time sessions and devote the rest of their time to private practice. Everyone appreciates that in the Health Service an enormous burden is placed on registrars—a much heavier burden than should be placed on them. Almost every week we read of some disagreeable happening in a Health Service hospital, and almost every time we read that no consultant appeared on the scene at all. One wonders whether private practice is causing some diversion of the consultants' time and energies and whether too large a burden is being placed on the shoulders of registrars, who often are ill-equipped to cope with the more difficult technical problems.
Thus, the use of private health services may well be causing some diversion of


resources. But in terms of the total cost of the Health Service, the £12 million a year paid out on these schemes cannot be an enormous diversion and there is not much reason to fear what will happen if the private health schemes increase by, say, 50 per cent. in the next 10 years. I do not think that that would cause a serious diversion of resources from the Health Service.
Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House must bear in mind that ever since 1946 there has been a steady growth in private health insurance schemes. That steady growth, which has taken place irrespective of the Government in power, must indicate beyond all doubt that a large proportion of the people are dissatisfied with the treatment which they get in the Health Service. There can be no escape from that conclusion.
At present, about 2¼ million people are covered by these private insurance schemes. That indicates that these people are prepared to divert a substantial part of their economic resources and that they want nothing to do with the Health Service. That is a criticism which we must accept.

Mr. John Mendelson: So far, I have followed my hon. Friend's argument, but he is beginning to misrepresent the case. What many people want is not to have nothing to do with the Health Service but to have all the advantages which a consultant can get them within the service.

Mr. Cronin: My hon. Friend does not grasp the point. I am talking exclusively about consultant services. When the prospective patient joins a private insurance scheme he gets his treatment entirely outside the Health Service, except that he may use a room in a hospital, and of course he pays for it at economic rates. He puts himself outside the service except in terms of renting that room.

Mr. Mendelson: And also in terms of the consultant's time. It is a case of jumping the queue.

Mr. Cronin: I take the point, but I cannot carry out a dialogue with my hon. Friend.
The situation is clear. Millions of people are voting with their pocket books to have treatment outside the Health Service. Whatever my hon. Friend says, that cannot be a compliment to the service.

Mr. Mendelson: It has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Cronin: This situation disturbs me. The Secretary of State for Wales said that the Health Service provides medical resources second to none and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is making interjections along similar lines. But we cannot accept the present situation. We must improve the service.

Mr. George Thomas: Mr. George Thomas indicated assent.

Mr. Cronin: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees. There is no room for complacency.
The Secretary of State said that there was no alternative to taxation in order to improve the finances of the Health Service. It must be largely a matter of additional finance for providing better buildings, better staff, more nurses, more doctors and more facilities in every way. But, while I do not want to go outside the scope of the debate, I suggest that more financial resources would be available if cost-effectiveness were introduced as a principle into the Health Service. At present, only lip-service is paid to it.
Every doctor is entitled to prescribe whatever treatment he wishes, irrespective of cost-effectiveness. In practice, general practitioners and consultants all over the country have a cheque book on the nation's finances over which no one out themselves has any control. That situation cannot make economic sense. If it were negotiated sensibly and carefully, surely some better arrangement could be made with the medical profession.
Millions of pounds are spent on drugs which are either inert or are unsuitable for the illness in question. This is largely due to the frenzied promotion by the drug manufacturers, which has a powerful psychological effect. An immense amount of treatment is given which is of dubious value. The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) spoke of the waiting lists for the ear, nose and throat consultants. We know that 200,000


sets of tonsils are taken out every year. In sore districts the operation is twenty times more frequent than in other districts. This shows more enthusiasm than regard for cost-effectiveness.
The same comment could be made about appliances. It is difficult for a consultant to refuse anyone who says, "I want an orthopaedic corset". He knows that if the patient does not get it he can go back to his general practitioner and say, "That consultant is no good". The consultant's reputation is then impaired in the mind of the general practitioner. There is immense room for increased cost-effectiveness on such matters in the Health Service.
The fact remains that improving the Health Service also requires some form of increased taxation. There is no escape from that. Perhaps it could be an increased contribution levied on employers or on employers and employees. But the Health Service cannot continue to be efficient on the rather beggarly finances it is receiving at present.
I do not wish to speak longer, because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate, but I wholly deplore the Opposition Motion, which can make sense, as the closing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) underlined, only in terms of increasing the insurance aspect of the Health Service. That is contrary to the whole idea of a free, comprehensive Health Service—an idea which has the overwhelming support of the country. The hon. Member did not come completely out into the open, but he made it fairly clear that the Opposition are basically opposed to the humane and popular idea of good, comprehensive, free treatment under the Health Service.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I must remind hon. Members that this is a brief debate. Perhaps they will keep their speeches brief.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I am puzzled by the Motion because it asks us to welcome the development of private health insurance schemes and any welcome that one would give them would depend very much on the reasons for the

development. If the development is due to inadequacies of the National Health Service, I admit that I do not welcome those inadequacies and, therefore, I do not welcome this development. If the welcome is given in the belief that this development can somehow solve the problems, I admit again that I do not welcome it.
As has already been said, the development of private health insurance cannot create new resources in the sphere of health in this country. They are limited by under-investment in the past and by bad planning. I listened with great interest to a Conservative Party broadcast on the radio two nights ago when we were told how much the previous Conservative Government had cut taxation. In fact it is not true, because the total of taxation went up by many thousands of millions of £s, but in so far as the Conservative Government were successful in cutting back the proportion of the gross national product which went into taxation, they were also successful in reducing the resources which went into the National Health Service.
When, the following day after the broadcast, I read about the condemnation of the children's ward in Paddington Hospital as unsuitable, I thought that the chickens had really come home to roost and that this was precisely the price which the nation had to pay for having under-invested in health resources in the past. The damage was done, of course; I have no brief for this Government, but it was not done by this Government. It may be true that the present Government do not have adequate plans for the future of the National Health Service, as the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) maintained. But where are the plans of his party? Where were their plans in the 1950s when they could have been laying down the foundations for hospitals in which children would not have to die in inadequate children's wards?
In fact, I regard the provision of private health insurance as something of a red herring if one is considering it in the totality of the National Health Service. If we compare it with the size of the problem, we find that it is just spitting in the ocean. The cost has more than doubled, from £830 million to £1,720 million in 10 years. Taking the figures


for 1967–68, we find that charges were £31 million, which was only 2·1 per cent., and contributions were £141 million, which was 9½ per cent. So the £12 million spent by the private insurance schemes last year is a very small amount even if it is compared with the small amount which came in from charges and contributions. It is indeed hardly worth making such a fuss about, as the Secretary of State seemed to do or as the Motion seeks to do.
I see no reason at all for abolishing private health insurance. The Secretary of State speaks in his pamphlet of unplanned growth, and I am bound to ask what that means. Was it growth, or lack of growth, which was responsible for the lack of hospital expenditure in the 1950s? If it was lack of growth, was it planned or unplanned? I suggest that it was planned and that planning has led to the present chaos.
Should private facilities be limited? Should they be discouraged, or should they, as the Secretary of State is aiming to do, be merely discouraged by threatening them vaguely in the hope that a degree of uncertainty about their provision in the future will prevent further growth? This seems to be another piece of government by kite-flying.
I am not insured privately at present, but I suspect that I shortly will be. I have not been insured with private insurance schemes primarily for political reasons. I make that quite clear. I have a political objection to taking advantage in this way, and I have had this objection for many years. I do not want private health schemes to undermine the National Health Service. But I must say that I have waited long enough for the National Health Service to catch up with the standards that I require. When a company with which I am associated suggested that we might have a company scheme by which one gets substantial reductions, the temptation has become fairly strong and one has to ask oneself a series of questions.
For instance, how long does one have to wait if one wants an appointment at an out-patients' department of a hospital, or as an in-patient? One has to wait a very considerable time indeed, as I know to my own cost from recent experience. If

money is not available to provide the facilities that I require in the National Health Service, this is because other people are not prepared to pay as much for their health as I am prepared to pay. Do I as an individual have to hold back from paying this money if others prefer, perhaps, colour television, or a second car, or perhaps a new car every other year instead of every four or five years?
The basic problem that faces us is a shortage of resources. Therefore, we have a need for rationing. I certainly do not wish rationing by the purse. That is the last thing in my political philosophy. Inevitably, one gets a certain degree of queue jumping. One sees cases of it in one's constituency all the time. It is simply paying on the side to get services that one would not otherwise have. This is nothing more than a black market in medical resources, and I accept that this is so. Of course, queue jumping takes place.
I have one or two illustrations which I should like to mention. I have a letter from a constituent who wrote in June about a friend as follows:
This lady has a daughter who has had very acute tonsilitis three times in very quick succession and the child was very ill this last week. Her doctor advised her that an operation for tonsilectomy was imperative and that she should be seen by a specialist at the earliest moment. This had to be done in spite of the girl's acute condition as the doctor wanted him to see for himself the state that she was in. The specialist agreed that an operation was absolutely essential if the girl was not to deteriorate further but that there would be a wait of at least two to three months. This he said could be overcome if she agreed to her daughter being taken in as a private patient and would be attended to immediately the acute condition had subsided, but the cost would be about £60.
This is quite blatant blackmail.

Lord Balniel: This, I agree, seems to be utterly wrong, but surely the position is that under Section 5 of the 1946 Act if any individual is in urgent need of medical attention a pay bed must be made available. Surely that is the case.

Mr. Pardoe: I will come on to this problem of what various individuals regard as medical priority because it is a matter of definition.
I have a letter from a Methodist minister in Cornwall who sent me a


resolution passed by his Methodist circuit, the members of which were concerned about the waiting list and the extension of the practice of private insurance. He said:
The fact remains that if it is possible to see a consultant within a few days by paying the fee as an alternative to several months waiting as an out-patient, then admission to hospital is accelerated by precisely that period. Recently I was speaking to a man with a painful condition who was told that the waiting list for a consultant was eleven weeks. As a young working man with a family he could not face that, so he opted for a private consultation which was arranged within two days. He thus got admission to a hospital nearly eleven weeks sooner than he otherwise would have done.
These are two cases which have come to my notice, and I have many more. This is clearly queue jumping which is inexcusable and ought not to be necessary.
The really sick will always get treatment under the National Health Service—I accept this—but the problem is that medical priority is a subjective matter in the mind of the patient and is an objective matter in the mind of the consultant or the doctor. There are no absolute methods of measuring medical priority. It depends, too, on which part of the country one happens to live, to a large extent. Therefore, if the patient wants to be sure of getting treatment where he wants it, he must pay for it.
What are the reasons why many of us consider insuring privately? Let me make it clear that the cost is not considerable. For a family of two adults and three children it amounts to £50 a year, or roughly £1 a week, less than a packet of cigarettes a day—and I do not smoke—less than the additional cost of renting a colour television instead of my present black and white set, and very much less than the cost of running a second car.
The first reason is privacy, and to some people this is more valuable than it is to others. Some people are naturally gregarious and do not mind going into a hospital ward with many others. Having spent some time at a boarding school, not that attended by the noble Lord, in dormitories and then, in National Service, in barracks, I have had enough of gregarious getting together in wards. The next time I am ill I should very much like to be in a private ward.
I do not think that I shall wake from unconsciousness, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is alleged to have done, very nobly, and say that I want to go into a public ward. It may not be a commendation for the future, but Loyola founded the Jesuits because he had a long period on his back in solitary confinement where he could think. We would never have had the Jesuits if he had been in a public ward, because one cannot think there. Many of us may come to dying in a ward, and I must admit that I should prefer to die in privacy than having to keep up a front before everyone else.
The second main reason for paying private insurance is that one can have the treatment when one wants it. I recently had to make four visits within four or five weeks to an out-patient clinic. Each appointment took only about a quarter of an hour, which made a total of one hour. Leaving aside travelling time, I was never there for less than one and a half hours, even though there was allegedly an appointments system and in the four visits that is a total of six or seven hours. Time is valuable to most people and it is worth paying something for it and it is legitimate to want to do so.
A third major reason is that one may have the specialist of one's choice. That is not very important to me. I do not know the medical profession well enough to know who I want to operate on me when the time comes and I do not think that I would care very much.
The fourth major reason, which I believe to be the most important, is disgust with the services offered by the National Health Service. I think that this disgust is increasing and I am not surprised that there should be an increase in a desire for private insurance to try to by-pass the agonies which one has to suffer in some sectors of the Health Service. Every hon. Member knows that he is besieged by letters from constituents who have had to wait long periods to go into hospital.

Mr. Albert Booth: If what the hon. Member is now alleging is true, and I dispute it, would it not be an argument for a general improvement in the standards of the Health Service and not an argument for permitting those who can afford to do so to purchase something better?

Mr. Pardoe: I entirely agree. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present when I said that the problem was that many people were simply not prepared to pay for the Health Service. That is blatantly true. Neither the Labour Government nor the Tories are prepared to pay for a decent Health Service. If they are not prepared to pay, am I not allowed to opt out of their decision—their decision, not mine?
Part of my constituency is in the Plymouth clinical area, which has 17 people on the waiting list for every 1,000 population. This is a very high figure compared with many other areas. The figure for Devon and Exeter, for instance, is 10 per 1,000. It is not surprising that I am submerged by requests to speed up the process, and doctors do not like their patients to contact Members of Parliament—one has grave reservations about delving into this jungle at all.
As a result of the lack of resources in the Health Service, there is an increasing tendency to centralise services in larger units. This is leading to great inequalities in different parts of the country, particularly between urban and rural areas. There is no doubt that rural areas are getting a raw deal. Cornwall now has a second-class health service. It may be said that it costs more to provide a Health Service for a rural community than for an urban community and that therefore Cornwall can be afforded only a second-class Health Service, but if we are to have a second-class service, we ought to pay only a second-class price.
There is nothing in the Act which brought the Health Service into being—and, incidentally, we had a health service in 1911, long before the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—which says that some citizens should have worse services simply because they live in rural areas. We legislated on the principle, which I regard as a noble principle, that poor people should have as good a service as the rich. Yet, apparently, we happily accept the principle that people in rural areas should have an infinitely worse service than those who live in urban areas, and there is no doubt from the figures that that is so. A modest request for physiotherapy out-patient treatment in Launceston and Stratton, two small hospitals—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): The hon. Member must come a little more precisely to the Motion time is getting on.

Mr. Pardoe: I accept your guidance, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Motion welcomes the development of private health insurance and I am arguing that the reason for the development of such schemes is disgust with the Health Service. I have had to recommend some of my constituents to go into private health insurance simply because of this factor. If hon. Members opposite think that the Health Service is satisfactory, that is their opinion and they are entitled to it. But I maintain that there is an increasing lack of confidence in the Health Service and that that lack of confidence is brought about by lack of resources and that that is the main reason why people are moving into private insurance.
One of the great advantages of having a national health service should be that one could rely on an adequate system of public inquiry if the system falls down in an individual's case. We have already had an Adjournment debate on the case of Guy Alderson. The assurances which I have received from the Secretary of State in this matter are quite inadequate to give the father of Guy Alderson, who died as a result of a mishap in Guy's Hospital, any confidence in the Health Service and I would have thought in his position that the answer was to seek a way out of it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have another look at this case about which I have written to his right hon. Friend in the last few days.
It would be wrong to discourage the development of private insurance schemes. I believe that they offer people a way of buying privacy and of buying certain facilities that are not necessarily strictly health facilities. I am aware that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will defend the National Health Service to their dying day. I support it as much as they do, but I also defend the right of people to go on paying for privacy and other side facilities if they want to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon Members will bear in mind the appeal


which the Chair has already made for short speeches.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: We have just listened to a weird speech from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). It contained practically everything. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his analysis of the neglect in the past. There are still many things to be done, and I admired him for his logic when he decided that these insurance schemes do undermine the National Health Service. Then he spent a lot of time telling us why he was prepared to join one. He then destroyed his own logic. The hon. Gentleman said that the reason for the growth of these schemes was the general disgust with the Health Service. This is absolute nonsense.

Mr. John Mendelson: Demagogic nonsense.

Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman himself demonstrated that one of the reasons why there has been a growth in insurance provisions is because of the large number of companies offering participation in group schemes at cheaper rates as a bargain. If a person joins with a group he gets special facilities, and we all like bargains. My great regret is that in this House, which is under Government control—and the Government are not in favour of these schemes—one can see advertisements aimed at Parliament's employees for group schemes downstairs, and in most of the Ministries in Whitehall civil servants are invited to join in such schemes. I find this contradictory.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has said that these schemes are not to the advantage of the N.H.S., and I congratulate the Opposition upon getting us another debate on the Health Service on the strength of that statement. I also thank hon. Gentlemen who have taken part so far for making it so wide that we have been able to discuss almost the whole N.H.S. The Fabian Society is possibly the only society which could publish a pamphlet which makes the Opposition hold a debate in the House of Commons within ten days of its publication. Here I must declare an interest as a member of the Fabian Society. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) said that 60 per cent. of

people engaged in these schemes are using the National Health Service. What he is saying is that this is a piggy-back sector which the rest of us carry as a weight on the shoulders of us all.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North was quite right when he said that we all pay for the National Health Service. We pay about £1 a week for each wage earner. Through our mutual efforts we provide a wide variety of services and on our backs we have the additional weight of those with the power to pay collectively in insurance schemes, or privately, to use the whole of the services which I and others have provided. Of course there is freedom of choice—it is the choice to use the services that I have paid for. I object very much to this, which is all part and parcel of the idea that the power of the purse is all. It runs contrary to the basic concept of the National Health Service, that medical need should be the only deciding factor.
It is not just a question of beds or privacy. Everyone who goes to hospital as an out-patient or an in-patient knows that when a person goes as a private patient his files, which go through all the departments, physiotherapy, radiography and any others, are marked at the top "P.P."—private patient. It is all very well to say that the answer is to get rid of the waiting system. What do we do? Are we to organise illness as we would organise a production line, so that people get ill at regular intervals and do not have influenza epidemics when hospital beds are full?
The inevitable consequence of any health service is that there will be waiting time. But if people can jump the queue by paying it is unfair upon those who cannot. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North was lucky to be quoted the price of £60 for an admission. Hospitalisation in a London teaching hospital is nearer to £80 a week.
Dealing with the number of beds, only 2 per cent. of our beds are pay beds. I gave these figures in a letter to The Times some time ago. In 1964 the number of pay beds available in the whole of the country was 4,033 and the occupancy rate was 1,916. In 1966 it was 4,030 with 1,928 occupied which is 47 per cent. of the pay beds being used. The rest were not occupied by paying patients.
In Scotland it is even worse. From a total of 571 available only 231, 40·5 per cent., were used by fee-paying patients. I have to give credit to some consultants. It is true that people can sometimes jump the queue with the help of consultants. I can cite the case of a consultant in a teaching hospital not far from here. A friend of mine had the problem of cancer of the breast and was extremely worried about it. A date had been arranged for an emergency operation within a fortnight. My friend felt that it was not possible to wait that long and went to see the same consultant in his Harley Street practice who said:
You can come privately but you cannot get in for six weeks. I can take you in 14 days under the National Health Service.
A large number of consultants do take these ethical considerations into account.
No one wants to go into hospital, and when they do they cannot help it, and want to make the best of it. If we have the private schemes as well, we will create a first and second-class tier in the service. The more the private schemes are successful the more downgrading there will be of the N.H.S. We create the incentive for people to obtain these advantages and not the incentive to raise the whole standard of the health service. The hon. Member for Farnham has given us the figures for the private schemes, £14 million with £12 million paid out in benefits. I can think of many ways in which this money could have been spent on the National Health Service. I would much prefer it to go to the nurses. It would be put to far better use than using it for the additional comforts of self-interest. As hon. Gentlemen may know a sister in charge of a ward at a teaching hospital in London receives 18s. 6d. for working an extra day, on a Sunday, after a full week's work.
Of course there are still things to do in the National Health Service, but for the Opposition to use one of their Supply Days on this kind of Motion is deplorable. Perhaps they hope that it will appeal to the snob instincts of some of their supporters, or that they will appear to be holding the banner of freedom—allowing people freedom to jump the queue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham because he hardly touched insurance but went a little more seriously

into the subject of the N.H.S. and dealt with other, more important issues.
Like so many debates in which I have taken part over the last ten years, this one has rehearsed a good many of the points that we are continually making about the Health Service. A comprehensive service can only be paid for comprehensively, and if we are all paying for it, we must control it. If we control it we must have the facilities. I accept the hon. Gentleman for Cornwall, North's point that there should be a spread of facilities and that the urban area should have no advantage over the rural area. This is all within the planning possibilities of the Health Service, but this 2 per cent. peripheral matter of insurance is not important. The nightmare that was raised for me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham opposite was that he felt it was important. If the door opened by the small insurance schemes like B.U.P.A. widened further, there could be a tremendous "killing" in terms of profits by much bigger fish in the insurance world. I had the privilege of seeing the Blue Cross and Blue Shield schemes in the United States. Lord preserve us from getting into a situation like that in which a father must decide how much cover he dare put into insurance for his family and be constantly anxious in case it is not enough.
I hope that the House will reject the Motion. I agreed to this slight extent with the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), that if I had framed the Government Amendment, I would have made it much more harsh and firm and much more anti the private insurance scheme. I hope that the Green Paper will give us greater democratic control over the Health Service, and if people want to participate and exercise free choice they will do so inside the National Health Service. These peripheral schemes divert our attention from the real things which need to be done.
There has been reference to the case concerning the hospital at Paddington in which a child died and which serves my constituents. I asked a Question of the Minister yesterday on this subject. Nobody chose that that child should die, but he died, because we had not the moral courage ten years ago to do the right thing for paediatrics. We had not


the courage to say, "There must be more public expenditure. If you want hospitals, nurses and paediatricians and 'kids' not to die in hospital, you must be prepared to pay the bill". To suggest that we can solve the problem by means of peripheral private schemes is so much nonsense that I regret that we have not a full House to hear this debate.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I should perhaps straight away declare an interest. I am a member of the Private Patients Plan. But I hasten to add that, strangely enough, when I had to go into hospital some years ago, I swiftly moved to a public ward for the company which was afforded me there.
I listened with the greatest interest to the debate. I was particularly interested in what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) said. He stated that none of his hon. Friends seriously questioned the right of people to spend their own money in their own way or the virtues of private practice. I noticed that his remarks fell on stony ground. They certainly did not seem to bring much of a response from his hon. Friends. The truth is that the right of people to spend their money in their own way is seriously questioned by hon. Members opposite. If it were not seriously questioned by them there would have been no Amendment tabled to our totally unexceptionable Motion. One could scarcely imagine a Motion more difficult to quarrel with. I remind the House of its terms:
That this House welcomes the development of schemes for private health insurance.
Who, with his hand on his heart, could not welcome such a development?
I wish to put two points to the House. First, every hon. Member recognises that it is highly unlikely that in the years to come the Treasury will be able to provide all the money which will be needed for the treatment of illness and disease. The demand is almost inexhaustible. When one thinks of the amount of money needed for the provision of kidney machines—and that is only one small need—we know that the Treasury will always put obstacles in the path of spending more public money.

Mr. Pavitt: We started with £1 million for the provision of kidney machines. The Treasury has now sanctioned £15 million to be spent on kidney machines alone.

Mr. Waddington: That is a glorious irrelevance. It is highly unlikely that in the coming years the Treasury will shell out all the money required for the Health Service.
Secondly, it is likely that we are close to the limit of what the public is prepared to pay by way of taxation and the National Insurance contribution. I listened with some amazement to what the hon. Member for Loughborough said on that score. We have only to experience in the constituencies the growing resistance to ever-increasing taxation and the reaction against the latest increase in the National Insurance contribution to realise that the day is fast coming when the public will not be prepared to provide the necessary funds if there is to be the expansion of the facilities for the treatment of disease which is needed. It is obvious that if we can encourage people to invest voluntarily in better medical care we should give three cheers, having increased the proportion of the national wealth spent on the treatment of illness and disease in a way in which it would be unlikely to be increased through taxation.
There is a wider issue of principle. I was horrified at the recent statement by the National Union of Teachers and their call for the abolition of private education in the interests, not, as I saw it, of education, but of egalitarianism. If the State insists on taking an ever larger proportion of the individual's income in taxation, the least that it can do is to allow the individual, who has paid his fair share of the State schemes for education and health, to spend what is left to him on taking off the backs of the State the responsibility for looking after himself and his children. If he is prepared to do that, the State should again give three cheers.
It is disturbing, to say the least, to see the distortion of values fostered by some hon. Members opposite and even more members of the Labour Party not of this House. Their philosophy seems to be that if a person "blows" his savings on a holiday in Bermuda or buys an expensive car, even an expensive foreign


car, that is all right. But if he exercises his inalienable right, which is recognised by international convention, to educate his children as he wishes, he is an antisocial scoundrel who is buying privilege. We must not allow this sort of distortion of values to creep into the subject of health.
I will not embark on the arguments advanced about queue jumping because time is short. If private practice were abolished tomorrow—and it would be abolished effectively if we took from people all the privileges which come from having private treatment—it by no means follows that the man in the street would be treated any more quickly. If private fees were abolished, even more doctors would leave the country as soon as they had completed their training. It is a sobering thought that 20 per cent. of all doctors trained in this country in recent years have emigrated permanently and almost immediately after completing their training. The one thing which we would ensure if we put fetters on private practice is that even more doctors would leave this country, which would be of no assistance to the Health Service or to the poorer members of the community who are unable to enter private health insurance schemes.
There is far too little encouragement of self-reliance in this country. I look on private health insurance schemes as performing a most valuable social function in that they remind people that there is still room for private endeavour and a place in the community for the person who says, "I can afford to look after myself, and I am prepared to do so, and to take some of the burden off the State".

6.10 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: I have heard quite a number of the speeches from the Opposition benches, including that of the Liberal representative. In every case there has been a direct or implied attack upon the National Health Service.
My experience of the House goes back to the time when it passed the National Health Service Act, when the Opposition party, the same party as are now in opposition, voted against it at every stage and when, above the clock in another

place, where we were then meeting, sat an owlish figure representing the British Medical Association, opposed entirely to the Health Service. That attack on the service is emerging again today.
I have had 32 years' experience of public life and fighting for one objective: that was, a decent service of hospital treatment in the district in which I live. My first election was in 1937. At no time during that 32 years can I say that the Tory Party has been of any significant assistance. They made no constructive move towards the hospital the last stage of which is now being built, thanks to the present Government, who made sure that the regional board had the money with which to build it. I refer to Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup. But for the present Government, we should not be able to look forward to a better standard of service with the new hospital.
I am a member of many years' standing of the hospital management committee. We have a large number of hospitals, including some which are hutted and not up to modern standards. The objective of that committee, of every nurse, every doctor and every lay administrator, is to give service to the patient, and that is what we give. We get very few complaints and the standard of service given by the nurses and doctors, particularly under bad conditions, gives me the greatest admiration.
I am not against private insurance as such. Let us face the fact, however, that excessive charges for private beds and private rooms can cause difficult problems, especially for those administering the finances of the service at hospital management level.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) inferred, if lie did not directly say, that he wanted additional amenities to be provided because of the increased demand for a private insurance scheme and for more private beds—and this at a time when our concentration should be on ridding ourselves of the old Victorian and other substandard hospitals. Let us give the proper standard of hospital service first. It is a question of priority, not of privilege, but of need.
The expansion of private practice in itself means more private beds. There is no denying that fact. I am not against


a measure of private practice where it is possible, but my experience, with that of my colleagues, in trying to ensure a decent standard of service for the great mass of people in the Health Service leads me to the belief that any provision of additional amenities and services for private patients at this time would have to be at the expense of the rest of the patients in the hospitals.
There is a supposition throughout the whole of this debate that fee-paying patients can get a higher degree of skilled treatment than others. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the impression which I have had. If that is not the feeling of hon. Members opposite, it is the impression one gets that it is possible to buy a better doctor under private insurance.

Mr. pardoe: No.

Mr. Wallace: Well, that is the impression that some people have. I am not saying that it is necessarily the Opposition's view, but it is true. That is what the average person thinks.
We get a flood of advertisements nowadays on this very subject. Not only do hon. Member get pamphlets, but the newspapers carry a great spread of publicity for the scheme. I have a shrewd suspicion that that is why the Tory Party have come in on this, to cash in on it. Their Motion is badly timed, because it adds to some extent to people's anxieties, remembering the unfortunate minority of cases which are receiving attention in the Press.
I put this direct question to the Opposition spokesman who will be replying for his party. What is behind the Opposition Motion? What is behind Tory thinking on this issue? I have heard and seen statements made by individuals outside that charges should be made for stays in hospital, that a general charge should be levied in the same way as we unfortunately have prescription charges. Is this pressure by the Opposition to provide greater private insurance schemes? Have they in mind the advancing of a theory later, possibly after an election, and not before, that there should be charges for all beds in hospitals? Then, of course, the private scheme would come to their salvation and help to pay the cost of the charges for

people who have insured. If that is the case, we are going right back to the conditions which prevail in certain other countries, far more wealthy than we are, where everyone who is ill has to pay.
Hon. Members opposite have talked about going to Bermuda and elsewhere. What do we do when we go on delegations abroad? One of the first things that any sensible hon. Member does is to make sure that he is fully insured against medical expenses. There is hardly another country where illness is not an expensive item, whereas in this country, at least we have the principle that anybody, irrespective of means, can receive adequate treatment.
One day, unfortunately, I was a sudden casualty and was whipped off to Westminster Hospital. I did not go into a private ward. I suppose that I was not a sufficiently important back bencher for that. I had all the treatment under the sun, as is available on the same basis for every other patient. The only additional treatment I got was that the hospital secretary had to deal with the Press, who seemed to be more interested in my passing out than in my recovery, perhaps because of the size of my majority. We all know that this happens.
Unfortunately, there was a large battery of photographers outside the House when I was taken into the ambulance. They were waiting, I think, for somebody more important, but the passage of a Member hors de combat on a stretcher was something beyond price to Press photographers. Fortunately, my wife threatened to sue them for libel and my photograph never got into the papers.
Apart from that kind of thing, most of us have been in ordinary wards and have seen the treatment that is given. We have experienced the treatment. There is no doubt that, in most cases, in the majority of our hospitals private insurance cannot mean additional skilled treatment because, thank goodness, the majority of hospital staff—doctors, nurses and lay administrators—have only one thing in mind, which is rammed home to us every time we have a meeting: the welfare of the patient is their first priority. Thank God that that principle still applies in the National Health Service today.

6.20 p.m.

Lord Balniel: We all found it very pleasant that the debate was opened by the Secretary of State for Wales, although I am bound to add that whilst it was very nice to have him here his speech was totally irrelevant to the Motion which we have moved, although it may have been relevant to his Amendment.
I think that, perhaps, as a Scotsman, I dare not refer to his Welsh-ness in view of the complexity of the law on the subject at the moment, but he did venture to say that both my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and I had been educated at Eton. Perhaps the House will allow me, with some academic loyalty to my school, to say how much better it might have been if the Secretary of State for Social Services had been an Old Etonian rather than an old Wykehamist. I think that it would have been of considerable value to the well-being of the country.
However, the question which we are debating today, as was brought out very forcefully by my hon. Friends the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), is really a very basic question indeed. It is whether people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves, or whether all decisions should be made for them by the State. We can certainly argue about the effect of expanding private provision on the State health services, and I shall refer to this matter during my remarks.
This is, however, subsidiary to the main question which we are discussing. We have moved a Motion welcoming the development of private health insurance because we believe it is right that people should be free to insure themselves if they wish to do so. We have noted that the Government's Amendment quite deliberately refuses to join us in welcoming this development and that it is designed to obliterate our Motion with a froth of plantitudinous words, words which are quite innocuous in themselves although in spirit which has motivated the Government's action is clear to everybody who has taken part in this debate.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) asked why we had proposed this Motion now. The reason is that it is becoming increasingly

apparent that the Government, just as they have curbed home ownership, and just as they are now attacking private occupational pension schemes, are now paving the way for an attack on our right to choose whether to use the State services or to make out own arrangements.
The Labour Party's document entitled, "Labour's Social Strategy" says:
We must be alive to the danger of a growth in private health and welfare provision which is now gathering momentum.
I could make many other quotations from the same document along the same line of thinking.
We have the Secretary of State for Social Services using very much the same language. He says:
The unplanned growth of these private insurance schemes is a disturbing element within the Health Service.
I am not quite sure what he means by "unplanned growth", but certainly I planned my insurance scheme very carefully indeed, and I review it every year. I believe that the registrations, which cover 2 million persons in private health insurance, were very carefully planned, also. What the Secretary of State really means is that this instinctive human demand for freedom of choice cannot be controlled by the Government, and he wishes to control it. I must confess my own wicked involvement in these schemes. I belong to B.U.P.A. I hardly dare acknowledge the fact to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but not only have I insured myself but I have insured my wife and my four children.
I know that all of us, all 2 million of us, should crawl and cringe and blush with shame in front of the Government. Our hideous crime is that we have decided that, over and above taxation and the contributions which we pay towards the Health Service, we will cut back on some aspect of our personal spending so as to insure ourselves and pay our doctors' bills. We in the House can, of course, laugh at the absurdity of a Government who think it dangerous for people voluntarily to put aside some of their earnings for health insurance. But we have no sympathy at all with their desire to stamp on private choice.
We have no sympathy with the view that a man's or woman's free choice is less important than politicians' plans.
Indeed, the development of the Government's attack on private health insurance, like their attack on private occupational pension schemes, is an attack on a fundamental freedom. People should be free in as wide a sphere as possible to make their own choice as to how they spend their own savings.
I shall return to this point of principle, but I should like just to look at two of the arguments which have been developed fairly fully in the debate against private provision against ill-health. The first argument is that it enables people to jump the queue. The second is that it draws resources away from the public service. I shall take the queue jumping argument first.
The Government know that in the case of pay-beds provided under Section 5 of the 1946 Act it is expressly stated that a pay-bed can be used for any patient who urgently needs it. Exactly similar provision exists for amenity beds under Section 4 of the 1946 Act. Therefore, there should be no question of any National Health Service patient who urgently needs a pay bed on medical grounds being refused one.
That is why I thought the case which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) must be illegal under the 1946 Act. However, that is, of course, a matter which he himself will be studying, to see the rights and wrongs of the case. But I would say to the Minister that if he has any evidence of that kind of queue jumping I hope that he will disclose the facts to the House and tell us what appropriate action he intends to take.
What private health insurance, like B.U.P.A., or like the Private Patients Plan to which my hon. Friend belongs, or the Western Provident Association, does is, it enables people, through their insurance, to buy privacy, to choose the time of their non-urgent operations. If people want these fairly elementary facilities like privacy, like the timing of their non-urgent medical operations, and they want to pay for it, why should they not have the right to do so? Timing of operations is very important to the staffs of businesses, and it is interesting to note that 70 per cent. of the membership of the private health insurance is of staff and professional groups.
After all, leading members of the Labour Party take advantage of the Manor House Hospital outside the Health Service, supported by the trade union movement. By the Government's definition, this is queue jumping. So, presumably, are the civil servants who belong to the Civil Service Medical Association, with 20,000 members.
The Government's case rests, so far as I can see, upon no point of principle at all. They are quite prepared to tolerate arranging medical treatment at a time to suit the patients provided that not too many people do it. Their case, a rather bad case, I think, is that a few elite should be allowed this privilege, but that on no account must it be extended to the general public.
I want to see an increasing number of the general public able to have their hospital treatment at a time convenient to themselves, subject always to the proviso that this must not ever stand in the way of anyone needing urgent medical attention.
I will turn now to the other objection which has been raised, the question of resources. About 60 per cent. of those who pay are in pay-beds in Health Service hospitals. I suppose it can be argued that it is marginally more time-consuming for staff to have pay-beds rather than for everyone to be in the public wards. Against this is the fact that these beds bring to hospitals valuable revenue which would otherwise be lost to the Health Service.
In addition to pay-beds, there are those who pay for treatment in about 150 hospitals, convalescent homes and nursing homes. These are run by B.U.P.A. and by a wide variety of voluntary and religious organisations. Some of them are profit-making and some nonprofit-making. The subscription income for B.U.P.A. is £14 million; for Private Patients Plan £2½ million; and for Western Provident Association £½ million. All this is extra money which is brought into the sector of health. The Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust runs 14 small hospitals with 466 beds. Next year, a new medical centre will be established with a fully automated laboratory. The Health Service is completely relieved of the cost of all these services which otherwise would fall on the taxpayer.
Is the Health Service so flush with money that the Government can haughtily reject these contributions voluntarily made by the public? One has only to walk around the geriatric wards of our hospitals, visit the mental subnormality hospitals, witness the understaffed general district hospitals or see the overworked, underpaid medical staff in these hospitals to realise the absolute folly of scorning the contribution which can be made by voluntary health insurance.
It may be argued that these doctors and nurses would be working in the Health Service if there were no private facilities. Perhaps some would. I accept that but I believe that there would be many more who would join their colleagues who have already emigrated from this country. If there were no private provision in this country, it is certain, without any "ifs" or "buts", that many doctors and consultants who now have a base of private practice, but who also do invaluable work in the National Health Service, would pack up and go. Nurses and doctors belong to one of the greatest professions in the world, and there is a worldwide demand for their services in rich countries like Canada, South Africa, Australia and the United States.
Even today, the Government should be deeply concerned that so many of our best young doctors are leaving the country, so that we have to draw on doctors from the under-developed countries where they are so desperately needed.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that surgeons and members of the medical profession practising privately put profit before their profession?

Lord Balniel: I believe that the medical profession, like every other profession, is entitled to a good remuneration. The remuneration offered in the Health Service is not good and that is why so many of our good doctors, particularly the young doctors, are leaving the country. That is exactly the point which the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who has great experience in this matter, made in his valuable contribution to the debate.
I return to the general issue of principle. These attacks by the Government on private health insurance stem from two motives. They are partly a sop to the egalitarian principles of the Left wing of the Labour Party. They are also partly because the Government are desperately anxious to distract attention from their failure to get to grips with the real problems of social welfare, to distract attention from the cut-back in the growth of the local community services on which old people depend, to distract attention from the inadequate provision for the mentally ill and from their failure to switch additional resources from one sector of the health service into this starved sector.
How foolish the Government are, for political purposes, to attack private provision, instead of concentrating every effort on bringing State help to the sick, the disabled and the elderly who cannot look after themselves. How foolish can a party be which writes in "Labour's Social Strategy" the words which I quoted at the beginning of my speech about
the danger of a growth in private health and welfare which is now gathering momentum.
What an incredible attitude of mind which makes them think that it is dangerous for more people to want to make more provision for their own health and welfare and that of their children. Apparently, this is a danger to the nation and the Socialist Government must stamp it out.
We warn the Government to keep their hands of occupational pension schemes, to keep their hands off the freedom of choice which men and women want and to keep their hands off private health insurance. We want a society where people are free to invest, save and insure and where the resources of the State are used to improve the conditions of our hospitals and the other services which can be provided only by the State. The Government, in their Amendment have gone out of their way to seek to amend our Motion welcoming the development of private health insurance. They are trying to obliterate the words and the spirit of the Motion, and I would advise the House to vote against their folly.

6.38 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): I have been impressed by the nature of the debate, which has been useful and important, although I thought the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) made a speech which bore little or no relevance to the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The hon. Member for Hertford continuously repeated the word "attack". I have listened most carefully to the whole debate, and I have heard no attack on private health insurance schemes or on private practice.
The problem of getting the best and most appropriate care and treatment for each and every patient is of paramount importance the solution to which cuts across all consideration of finance. My right hon. Friend made the point that if one is in urgent need of treatment our hospital service responds at once, and I know that I can safely say that nowhere else in the world is better treatment more readily available to the entire community when urgent medical or surgical help is needed than in this country under the National Health Service.
Our hospital services are organised so that any patient in real need can be admitted at once and receive the devoted care of doctors, nurses and all the other hospital staff, without the question of payment for the care provided. As medical knowledge has expanded and scientific know-how increased, facilities have been made available in hospitals which are at the service of all, irrespective of financial status, race, creed or any other considerations except those of medical need and the relief of suffering, pain and distress.
The advent of antibiotics and all the other new wonder drugs and our immunisation programmes have played a very large part in controlling and curing many of the acute infections so lethal in the past. Mortality in the younger age groups has been greatly reduced, for example, one of the main scourges of earlier days, tuberculosis, has been almost eliminated. On the other hand, better medical care and improved social services mean that much larger numbers of people are now living on to middle and old age arid, at one stage or another, requiring

medical care for chronic degenerative and debilitating disorders, for cancer, for heart diseases, and for a host of other conditions.
New and sophisticated techniques which not only diagnose more accurately the disease process, but also improve the success of treatment, have become increasingly available. This, along with improved surgical and anaesthetic techniques, has made surgery far safer. This brings in its train problems. For example, the previously untreatable and fatal congenital abnormality has now become not only a surgical problem, but one whose solution may result in a rehabilitation and medical care commitment for the rest of the patient's life.

Sir Stephen McAdden: On a point of order. I am sorry to raise a point of order which I have raised in the case of other Ministers, Mr. Speaker, but it is becoming intolerable that Ministers get up and read their speeches word for word.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has called attention to this phenomenon before but the Chair has often had to rule that a Minister may use copious notes when addressing the House.

Dr. Dunwoody: As I was saying, increasing sophistication means that the traditional specialities are increasingly being subdivided into smaller specialities in order to develop expertise, new skills and to concentrate resources. Thus, costly methods of treatment compete for priority with all the other demands on available resources. A progressive and more enlightened attitude—which is something we would all welcome—towards the mentally ill, the subnormal, the geriatric, the disabled, and the chronic sick brings all these patients, more than ever before, to the forefront of our thinking and planning.
As many of those who have contributed to the debate have said, the picture is not always so satisfactory for patients who are not suffering from an urgent condition, but who are waiting for surgical treatment for a non-urgent disability. Waiting lists vary greatly up and down the country, but it is clear that there are some areas and specialties where the waiting times are long and where the sum of discomfort, unhappiness


and reduced effectiveness at work and in everyday life must be considerable.
As my right hon. Friend has said, the number of patients awaiting admission at the end of last year was over half a million. The vast majority of these were waiting for surgical treatment, but I am glad to say that for the second year running general surgery, the largest discipline, showed a small reduction in the numbers waiting. Other specialties showing a decrease in that year were tonsillectomy ophthalmology, urology, plastic and thoracic surgery. The waiting list for tonsillectomy was 18 per cent. of the surgical total. As hon. Members know, there is controversy over the indications for this operation and this particular part of the waiting list should be looked at in the light of this fact. Again, in gynaecology there was a small decrease for the second year running.

Mr. Peter Emery: But would the Minister not agree that the Health Service waiting lists would be very much larger if a large number of tonsillectomies were not done under private health insurance schemes? Would the hon. Gentleman now turn his mind to the Motion and say whether he is in favour of private health insurance, if he is not attacking it?

Dr. Dunwoody: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for some time, and particularly since he did not hear my right hon. Friend speak earlier in the debate. So far as waiting time for admission is concerned, as my right hon. Friend has said, urgent cases are admitted without delay. The great majority of patients on waiting lists are those booked for non-urgent elective surgery. Examples of the median waiting time—the waiting time of the middle patients in a group distributed in order of waiting time, and the largest proportion of those waiting fall around this point—were, in 1967, 8½ weeks for hernia, 7½ weeks for haemorrhoidectomy, 12 weeks for uterine prolapse, and 14 weeks for varicose veins.
It is clear from these figures why some patients prefer to take advantage of private facilities to cut short the wait. This is understandable, and it could be argued to be justified in terms of the convenience of the individual. But more

can and must be done to remedy the situation within the Health Service itself. There are still hospitals where the organisation of the facilities for outpatient attendances, for admissions and for operating lists fail to make the best use of available resources. This is something which only the doctors themselves, in consultation with nursing, other professional and administrative colleagues can put right. In many areas the medical and nursing staff concerned are organising themselves to solve just this problem. I hope that organisation will steadily improve so that we will see, at least, waiting lists will no longer be increased by shortcomings in organisation.
But it is not simply a matter of logistics. There are not unlimited supplies of manpower, medical, nursing and other skilled fields, and whatever is done either in the private or the public sector can only be done within the limit of the resources available at any one time, including, of course, financial resources.
Hon. Members opposite have made the point that there are other ways, in their opinion, than financing the Health Service largely through Exchequer funds. They ask why cannot private medical insurance be substantially expanded? Then we are sometimes asked, why cannot patients be called upon to pay a boarding charge for their hospital treatment, or to pay a charge per visit to their general practitioners?
A thoughtful commentary on some of these suggestions was made in a leading article in The Lancet of 6th December. It is worth referring specifically to some of the important points it makes. In the first place, the article agrees with my right hon. Friend's contention that
the idea that charges can be a substitute for taxes as the main source of National Health Service revenue can be dismissed out of hand".
It mentions that a £4 a week charge for hospital patients and a fee of 2s. 6d. for each visit to a general practitioner would yield only £60 million, leaving aside the need for refunds and exemptions, and that this sum would make very little impression on the total budget of £1,600 million for hospital and family practitioner and allied services in Great Britain.
The article continues:
About 800,000 people are registered with a private insurance scheme to provide varying


degrees of cover against hospital bills for private treatment, fees for general-practitioner consultations, and the cost of drugs. Many people think that increased reliance on schemes such as these would lessen the burden on the State; but this seems a very doubtful proposition…
The Lancet then goes on to say that my right hon. Friend
did not stress the point which has long concerned those with an eye to what has happened to medical care in the United States—namely, that insurance can never be comprehensive, so the National Health Service will retain responsibility for the expensive items such as mental illness and chronic sickness and for those with a poor medical history. After all, what middle-aged man could afford to cover himself against the need for intensive care if he had a history of myocardial infection?
The article refers also to the possibilities of increased Health Service contributions, but it concludes, in regard to all the possible ways of raising money for health, as follows:
These alternatives are the same as they have always been, and we can find nothing in this pamphlet to alter the view that the only way to pay for a comprehensive, free Health Service is out of general taxation.
This represents a point of view which is doubtless shared by very many of the medical profession as well as by Her Majesty's Government.
There were, however, a number of points raised by hon. Members in the debate with which I should like to attempt to deal in the short time at my disposal before summing up our conclusions on the place of private medical insurance in the pattern of health care.
I wish to take up a point which was made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), when he opened the debate. I understood him to say that expenditure in the years ahead in health and welfare not only were not planned to rise, but might fall marginally. He quoted the figure of 0·1 per cent. increase per annum. If he will look at the White Paper, "Public Expenditure from 1968–69 to 1973–74", he will find that we plan an increase of 3·8 per cent. in expenditure per year between 1968–69 and 1971–72 at constant prices.
This is a figure for the country as a whole. The effect of considering the figure per capita will be marginal, because the increase in the population of this country, which is taking place steadily

every year, is a very small percentage in any one year and the figures I quoted were for two or three years.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman was quoting a figure of increase in expenditure on health and welfare of 3·8 per cent. from 1968–69 to 1971–72, but there was an increase of 3·9 per cent. from 1964–65 to 1968–69, so there is a dropping in the rate of increase.

Dr. Dunwoody: The noble Lord will remember that his colleague said that, far from there being an increase or a drop in the increase, there would be a cut in years to come. I have tried to explain that this is not so and that we plan to improve the services as rapidly as possible.
Hon. Members have referred to the possibility of queue jumping by private patients. It is, of course, true that if a patient is referred by his general practitioner to a consultant privately for advice on a non-urgent condition he may thereby be seen at an earlier date than would be possible if he had been referred under the Health Service for a hospital out-patient appointment. Any priority in the queue should, however, stop there.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) instanced an urgent case of a patient who had to wait a long time before a bed was available. That should be catered for by the procedure of hospitals whereby urgent requests for beds jump the queue for out-patient appointments. I can speak from experience. It is almost invariably the case that urgent cases can be seen quite rapidly and the long period of waiting which urgent cases have to endure is not necessary.
Some years ago an agreement was reached with the medical profession to check the possibility of jumping the queue for a Health Service bed by having a consultation on a private basis. This was to the effect that if a patient has been seen by a consultant privately, and required admission as a non-paying patient, he would either have to attend the outpatient department, or the consultant would pass to the hospital an ordinary out-patient record or his notes and the patient would then be admitted, according to his medical priority, from the general waiting list.
There have been other allegations that priority in operating time is secured for the private patient, and there are understandable anxieties about this. The situation is further complicated in some places as operating theatre space is limited and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that more theatres are needed in these places. More are being built, but even theatres have to take their place in order of priority with other essential hospital building. The vital consideration is to ensure that the facilities which are already available should be used to full advantage.
Following the Report on the Organisation of Medical Work in Hospitals, more and more of the surgical staffs in hospital are organising their work with a view to achieving the objective of the maximum number of patients treated in the shortest time having regard to the professional and ancillary staff and other facilities available. I pay tribute to the work done in many hospitals by medical and nursing staff to achieve this desirable end.
Other hon. Members have raised various points about bed occupancy. Why are pay-beds under-occupied? Could we not have more amenity beds? The short answer to these points is that pay-beds should be and are used by Health Service patients who require them on medical grounds. As for amenity beds, there is little room for much expansion since many single rooms or small wards in old hospitals are rightly used for patients whose medical condition demands their use. In new hospital, there is a much higher proportion of single rooms and very few large wards. Most patients would not find it necessary to pay to secure extra amenity in these new hospitals.
Another quite different point has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House—the interaction between private practice and Health Service practice and the contribution made by one to the other. It is quite true that in some areas of the service the two are in parternship. In certain places for example the Health Service contracts to pay for beds in private hospitals and nursing homes—this is sometimes necessary for geographical reasons—though the number is decreasing with the pro-

vision of new or extended Health Service hospital facilities. We think it right, in this situation, that the Health Service should contract to use certain beds in these units of the community as a whole, at least as a stop-gap until we have been able to improve the service to fulfil the needs of the community.
On the other hand, the Health Service supplies such things as blood and laboratory services to these private units. While this is possible on a small scale it would be quite impracticable to meet unforeseen demands from a much larger private sector. Conversely, the private sector would find great difficulty in providing and manning the vast sophisticated diagnostic services which are an essential part of a modern comprehensive service.
Finally, some hon. Members who may not contemplate a service wholly based on private insurance, have asked why a modest increase in private insurance could not be encouraged. The Lancet article to which I referred earlier makes the comment that
very little is known about how private practice works…
and indeed, despite all the discussion of private practice, nowhere have all the facts been brought together. It has been striking that in this debate very different figures have been quoted by hon. Members on either side of the House. I do not think it is anything more than an indication that we do not know all the facts.
Because of this uncertainty, my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be most helpful to hon. Members on both sides to have an independent and objective study of the scale, the scope and the rate of growth of private practice, and to this end he is exploring with P.E.P. the preparation of a study of this kind. It is important that it should be an independent study, because this is not an area where it is appropriate that my Department should initiate or conduct the work.
It is thus difficult at present to say what would be the effect of modest changes in scale of private practice. However, in any event, private practice is inevitably limited in scope, dealing mainly with the therapeutic aspects of a particular illness occurring in the patient. I have already made plain it is not in a position to cover the comprehensive range


of services provided by general practioners, the local authority and the hospital which span the lifetime of the individual from cradle to grave and make available preventive medicine, rehabilitation, and health education, together with such social, medical and welfare services as may be required by the patient.
Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility to provide the whole range of services across the community, and I repeat what I said earlier, that there is nowhere in the world where better treat-

ment is more readily available to the entire community when urgent medical help is needed than in Britain today. Private practice plays a part, and it is highly desirable that we should be better placed to assess the actual contribution which private practice is making towards the total health care of our community.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 225.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dickens, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Albu, Austen
Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam


Alldritt, Walter
Driberg, Tom
Hynd, John


Allen, Scholofield
Dunn, James A.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Ashley, Jack
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ellis, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Ennals, David
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HuIl, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Ensor, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Baxter, William
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Beaney, Alan
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Benn, Rt, Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bennett, lames (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Bessell, Peter
Femyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford


Bidwell, Sydney
Finch, Harold
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Binns, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Latham, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (lslington, E.)
Lawler, Wallace


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Leadbitter, Ted


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Ledger, Ron


Boston, Terence
Ford, Ben
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Boyden, James
Forrester, John
Lee, John (Reading)


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Gerry
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Frascr, John (Norwood)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown,Bob(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne,W.)
Gardner, Tony
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Garrett, W. E.
Luard, Evan


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Lubbock, Eric


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Colding, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McBride, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Gregory, Arnold
McCann, John


Carmichael, Neil
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacColl, James


Carter-jones, Lewis
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacDermot, Niall


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macdonald, A. H.


Concannon, J. D.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McElhone, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire, Michael


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamling, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Cronin, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackie, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Haseldine, Norman
Mackintosh, John P.


Daiyell, Tam
Hazell, Bert
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Henig, Stanley
MacPherson, Malcolm


Davies, G Eifed (Rhondda, E.)
Hilton, W. S.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hobden, Dennis
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Horner, John
Manuel, Archie


Deiargy, Hugh
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mapp, Charles


Dell, Edmund
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marks, Kenneth


Dempsey, James
Howie, W.
Marquand, David


Dewar, Donald
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy




Maxwell, Robert
Pentland, Norman
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mayhew, Christopher
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Swain, Thomas


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Traverne, Dick


Mendclson, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Millar), Bruce
Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Price, William (Rugby)
Thornton, Ernest


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Tomney, Frank


Molloy, William
Randall, Harry
Tuck, Raphael


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rankin, John
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rees, Merlyn
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Richard, Ivor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Wallace, George


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Neat, Harold
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Newens, Stan
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Weitzman, David


Norwood, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Roebuck, Roy
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ogden, Eric
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Whitaker, Ben


O'Halloran, Michael
Rose, Paul
White, Mrs. Eirene


O'Malley, Brian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Whitlock, William


Oram, Albert E.
Rowlands, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Orbach, Maurice
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Orme, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Oswald, Thomas
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Padley, Walter
snort, Mrs. Renée(W'nampton,N.E.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Paget, R. T.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Winnick, David


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Skeffington, Arthur
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Pardoe, John
Slater, Joseph
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Park, Trevor
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Snow, Julian
Wyatt, Woodrow


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Spriggs, Leslie



Pavitt, Laurence
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. William Hamling.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cordie, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Astor, John
Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Crouch, David
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hawkins, Paul


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hay, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dance, James
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Batsford, Brian
Dean, Paul
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heseltine, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Higgins, Terence L.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Drayson, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, J. E. B.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Holland, Philip


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Errington, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Hunt, John


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fortescue, Tim
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Foster, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brewis, John
Fry, Peter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Gibson-Watt, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jopling, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhart, Philip
Kershaw, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Gower, Raymond
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Lambton, Viscount


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lane, David


Cary, Sir Robert
Grieve, Percy
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, H. P. G.
Gurden, Harold
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chataway, Christopher
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)







Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Longden, Gilbert
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


MacArthur, Ian
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Temple, John M.


McMaster, Stanley
Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pounder, Rafton
Tilney, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Prior, J. M. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pym, Francis
Waddington, David


Marten, Neil
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mawby, Ray
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walters, Dennis


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Mills, Stritton (Belfast, N.)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Miscampbell, Norman
Robson Brown, Sir William
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Monro, Hector
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, A. W.


Montgomery, Fergus
Royle, Anthony
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Murton, Oscar
Silvester, Frederick
Worsley, Marcus


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sinclair, Sir George
Wylie, N. R.


Neave, Airey
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Younger, Hn. George


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nott, John
stainton, Keith
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony
Mr. Jasper More.


Orr, Capt. L P. S.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.


Resolved,


That this House, noting the development of schemes for private health insurance, recognises that these cannot provide an adequate alternative to existing methods of financing a comprehensive health service.

SCOTLAND (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the next debate, may I remind the House that every Scottish Member is trying to take part in what will be a very short debate? Very short speeches will help.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the serious net reduction in jobs in Scotland, estimated by Her Majesty's Government at 67,000 in the last three years for which figures are available; notes that this shows the forecasts in the White Paper on the Scottish Economy published in January, 1966, to have been thoroughly misleading; and concludes that the results of Her Majesty's Government's policies have fallen far short of their own expectations.
Scotland, with the rest of Britain, has been suffering from a credit squeeze, high interest rates and minimal growth. But the matter which we are raising tonight is of particular concern—the net reduction in persons in employment in Scotland. According to the Department of Employment and Productivity, the period from December, 1965 to December, 1968 is the latest for which comparable figures are available.
There is concern for two reasons first, because it is a substantial net loss in three years, second, because it is entirely contrary to the Government's own estimates and stated expectations. We are, therefore, hoping to provide the Government with time this evening to explain why their forecasts were so inaccurate or what went wrong in the event.
No one can be happy with these figures which the Department of Employment and Productivity has provided. The December, 1968 figures were provisional when first given. Perhaps they can now be confirmed or made more precise. The figures have been made available to the House in Parliamentary replies and breakdowns have been given by the Department in correspondence with me and my hon. Friends.
No one can be satisfied, although the Government w ill no doubt explain in their way what the situation is and how it has arisen. Because a run-down at this rate—67,000 in three years—if continued, would not be consistent with the kind of regional development which promotes

strong industrial growth, we feel impelled to ask the Government certain questions not only about the past but about the present and the future. We know what the Government were expecting, because the years up to 1970 were set out en page 9 of the White Paper on the Scottish economy. At the same time and on the same page, the Government recorded what had happened from 1960 to 1964, most of this period being before they came into office.
Thus, there were published together in January, 1966, figures for the whole period 1960 to 1970, in two parts. First was the period 1960 to 1964, four years, with the past, we presume, accurately recorded, second was the period 19651970, six years projected and estimated. To anyone who may ask me, as some have, why I am choosing these periods, I simply reply that I am not choosing them: these are the periods chosen by the White Paper.
From the four years 1960 to 1964, we learn that 157,000 new jobs came into existence. From the six years, 1965 to 1970, we find that considerably fewer130,000—new jobs were estimated over a longer period. This was therefore a modest projection, even though it must have included many jobs already arranged before 1965, such as those estimated at about 6,000 which were coming in with the move of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow, which had already been arranged, and also the new pulp mill, which was then being built, and from which another 1,000 jobs were expected, and the new electronics industry, which was expanding fast in that time.
Also important from page 9 of the White Paper are the figures for the jobs disappearing. In the four years 19601964, 127,000 jobs disappeared. That is a large number, but there was still a net gain of 30,000, because 157,000 new jobs were created. Now we come to the really significant figure. In the six years 19651970 an estimate of only 74,000 new jobs were reckoned to disappear. This is less than half of the previous rate—127,000 in four years.
Therefore, it is no good the Minister saying, as he did the other night, that this was a sudden run-down of the old traditional industries. The run-down had


already started, at a high rate. Clearly, the 74,000 over the six years was a very doubtful figure in the light of what had already been happening. It is difficult to understand how this very low estimate was made. It is clear that the modernisation in agriculture would continue, meaning fewer men employed on the land. It was also clear that the reduction of manpower in the coal industry would continue. Did the Government suddenly expect a dramatic change in the situation in 1965? If they did, I am sure that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has watched this situation so closely, would have been extremely interested to know.
The miscalculation was described at the bottom of page 9:
In none of the sectors of industry where employment is likely to contract would the rate of contraction be expected to be as heavy or as rapid as it has been in the past.
There was no reason given why that statement should have been made.
The result of that miscalculation is that instead of a net gain of jobs of 60,000 in the six years we have had a net loss of 67,000 in only three years within the six-year period. If the Government's explanation is still what the Minister of State said on 24th November, that this was all caused by a faulty estimate, the faulty estimate must have been of considerable magnitude—of the order of a loss of about 100,000 jobs which could not have been expected.
In addition to page 9 of the White Paper, we also have the Secretary of State's own statements in 1964. In the Glasgow Herald of 24th September, 1964, it was reported:
Mr. Ross said that Labour aimed at creating 40,000 new jobs a year in Scotland to cope with school-leavers and people made redundant through the run-down of established industry.
There were similar statements in two other newspapers from that time which I have. All three newspapers gave the same figure of 40,000 new jobs a year.
The Secretary of State made a great deal of this matter of new jobs as an important point, and he also made a lot of the figure of 40,000 new jobs a year. This has created a paradox. At the very time when he was speaking, the rate of 40,000 new jobs a year was being achieved. Not only that, but at that

time, when the White Paper records 157,000 new jobs in four years—which is about as close to 40,000 a year as one can get—he was speaking towards the end of the period in which this target was actually being achieved.
Then a little over a year later that he put forward his own proposals and estimates for the future. He chose a target of 130,000 which meant only about 21,000 new jobs a year, or almost half the number that he himself had been putting forward as a target before the 1964 election. I have described it as a paradox, and I know that strange things happen in public life, but to have been advocating a target which was at the time actually being achieved and then later to put forward a programme of one's own amounting to almost half that target figure is bizarre in the extreme, and probably unique in this country's politics.
In a one-sided Adjournment discussion the other evening—it would be misleading to describe it as a debate—which was started by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), the Minister of State said that none of us on this side had predicted that the 74,000 estimated run-down figure was incorrect. The Minister of State was wrong there, as on other points, as we could have told him had he given us the chance to get into that discussion.
I said it on 26th January, 1966, the day of the publication of the White Paper. I said it that same evening on a television programme. It was on the day it came out. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is not with us at the moment, because he took part in the programme and would remember it. One can hardly do better than comment on a White Paper on the day of the publication of the White Paper. When I was asked to comment on the White Paper in the television programme I said that the figure of 130,000 was too small because it was unlikely to outweigh the number of jobs which would disappear. I had in front of me the White Paper, open at page 9.
I said that on the first day and I have said it ever since, and for the Minister of State to make the statement he did make shows that he has not been paying


attention to what we on this side have been saying. That is no surprise to us. If he had said that we keep on saying the same thing, that we are repetitive, he might perhaps have had a point, but to say that it has not been said at all is ridiculous.
The Government made great play of that 130,000 figure. It was attractive, and it dazzled some people at first sight, but in fact it was a very unambitious target. They also made great play of the estimate of a net gain of 60,000 new jobs during the six-year period. The fact is that their assessment of the new jobs to be created was modest and their assessment of the reduction in the old traditional kind of jobs was unrealistic. The publication of this misleading picture about two months before polling day in the General Election was no doubt entirely fortuitous.
I believe that some part of the explanation lies in the failure to obtain growth in the economy. I also suggest that one important factor was not known to the Secretary of State in January, 1969, and I am prepared to grant him that. It was, indeed, a factor unknown to almost everyone until it was announced on 3rd May. 1966. It was the selective employment tax. I grant that the Secretary of State's calculations could have been upset by it. Information provided in Parliamentary replies makes it clear that this tax has contributed to the total reduction in jobs in Scotland, particularly in the distributive and service trades and industries.
I believe that both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are to speak in this debate, and I hope that we will get some comment on whether that tax did to some extent upset their calculations. I exonerate the Secretary of State personally to this degree because he could not have known about the selective employment tax, but let him tell us whether he thinks that it altered his estimates.
The Minister of State has mentioned on earlier occasions that 119,000 new jobs have so far been obtained during the six-year period which is due to end in a year's time. Are all these jobs yet on the ground, or are they in sight—arranged, but not yet in Scotland? That 119,000

figure is modest, like the target, but it is not nearly enough to offset the reductions taking place in employment in Scotland.
Let me make it clear that I am very concerned with the type and quality of jobs as well as the numbers of jobs. Type and quality certainly matter. For example, I accept that ten jobs that are eminently suitable, or liable to propagate other jobs once started, are better than a dozen indifferent jobs. But any increase that there may have been in type and quality in the last four years cannot possibly mitigate the net loss of jobs running into tens of thousands. I will be the first to accept the argument that jobs of a better kind, more lasting and better paid jobs, may be coming in, but that cannot be the answer to the whole of this problem.
It is also important that certain kinds of jobs should be located in Scotland, if possible. We particularly hope that the head offices of companies and other organisations will be located in Scotland, and research establishments, too. The Scottish Council has rightly expressed its anxiety about some jobs of this kind leaving Scotland. The Post Office Savings Bank was a very good instance of the Government themselves making a move in the right direction, and setting an example.
In a debate on 1st May I raised the question of loss of jobs with the Minister of State—at that time, the Department s calculations for the latest period it could cover was a loss of 35,000 jobs—but the Minister did not reply. I accept that there was a shortage of time because of the antics of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) in that debate. He decided to filibuster a Scottish debate by speaking for one-and-a-half hours. Worse than that, he filibustered private Members' time—and that is precious to all private Members. For a private Member to win a Ballot and to have time between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on a Thursday was fortunate, because it was a particularly suitable time for a Scottish debate. It was only two weeks after the Budget, and therefore it was highly appropriate to discuss the effect of that Budget on Scotland. For the hon. Member for Fife, West, himself a private Member, to eat up private Members' time in that way I can describe only as an act of Parliamentary cannibalism. The conclusion which one could


reach was that he was trying to stop the facts and the arguments from being heard.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Mr. Donald Dewar (Aberdeen, South) rose—

Mr. Campbell: I did not refer to the hon. Member and I will not give way to him.
We come to the hon. Member for Motherwell. This occurred at Question Time, and I congratulate him on his gallantry, for he suddenly came to the rescue of the Prime Minister, ending the questioning, just as the Leader of the Opposition was being called to put a question, by giving notice of an Adjournment debate. As he did not state the conventional reason—namely, the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply—we assume that he has adopted a new rôle as Don Quixote, protecting his Front Bench. Why is he so sensitive? Why do he and the hon. Member for Fife. West, feel that they have to protect their Front Bench? Why are they so protective? Surely they could let the Government give their explanation. We look forward to hearing it tonight.
The hon. Member for Motherwell decided to go through with his Adjournment debate on 24th November. He spoke as long as possible in that debate so that he and the Minister were the only speakers in it or, rather, in that discussion. Nevertheless, as an element which is not customary to this kind of debate, he produced a remarkable apologia for the Government. For example, he called in aid, to try to explain this figure of a net loss of 67,000 jobs, a dip in the birth rate early in the 1950's. I am sure that neither the Government nor their advisers would have thought of that. He told us that the school-leaving age was rising, although it had not yet officially happened.

Mr. George Lawson: No.

Mr. Campbell: He talked about people leaving school later. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will say it again; he talked about the school-leaving age rising, although it has not yet officially happened. Anyone who looks up in HANSARD what he said will see that what I have said is strictly correct. I will not continue. I am sure that if he had had more

time we should have been told about votes at 18 and the arrival of a man on the moon—all brought in to help the Government.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member knows very well that I was talking about the number of boys and girls staying at school beyond the age of 15.

Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Member. That is exactly what I said. It was an entertaining performance and it was considerate of the hon. Member, as we could only be onlookers.

Mr. George Willis: Quite right, too.

Mr. Campbell: But I doubt whether it helped the Government at all.
What is the Government's attitude? They have put down an Amendment today, and the first point which they make in it concerns the number of advance factories which have been built. I am surprised at that, because according to the Board of Trade's most recent information many of these factories in Scotland are standing empty. The latest count, given in an Answer on 10th November, was that 11 were standing empty in Scotland. It is all very well for the Government to measure the square feet of factory built, but what matters is whether the factories are being used. An empty factory provides no jobs.
The second point in the Amendment refers to emigration and to the welcome improvement during the last year up to June. That fails to mention the extremely bad emigration figures just before that. If hon. Members look at the emigration figures over the last 12 years, they will see that total migration during the five years of this Government has been considerably more than the total emigration during the previous five years. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figures: 193,000 under this Government and 167,000 in the previous five years. What is particularly important is that the two worst years, 1966 and 1967, are within the three years which we are discussing under the Motion. It is clear, therefore, that emigration accounted for some of the reduction in jobs which occurred during the period. We know where some of the people went who did not have jobs or who left jobs. We come to


the reasons for the welcome improvement. I see the Secretary of State smiling. Of course the improved figures are welcome, but could it be, if we look for an explanation—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The hon. Member must not strain himself.

Mr. Campbell: I will not strain myself.
If we look for an explanation, could it be that it is known that there will be a change of Government before long? Is it not due to the fact that it is known that there will be a new attitude in Scotland—incentive to enterprise and effort, a chance to keep more of what people earn, and prospects of healthy industrial growth?
I am surprised that the Government referred to the advance factories and to emigration because neither offers them much comfort or much credit. What matters is the effectiveness of Government measures and whether a Government can create the climate and conditions for increasing modern industrial activity and expansion in Scotland.
We ask the Government to tell us plainly this evening the answer to some questions. Are they entirely content with the net loss of jobs over these three years? To what extent is this loss attributable to the selective employment tax? To what extent is it attributable to the failure of the growth rate which was proposed in the White Paper? That was based on the previous growth rate. If hon. Members look at page 20 of the White Paper they will read:
The national average rage of growth of output during 1960–64 was achieved in Scotland, and output per head has been rising faster in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. To realise the objectives for the future, recent rates of growth must be sustained and increased.
The Government referred to the 1960–64 rates and said that it was essential to sustain them. These rates have palpably not been sustained.
We ask the Government, would they be happy if such a rate of loss of jobs continued? Would they be happy if in the following three years there was a further net loss of 60,000 jobs in Scotland? This is a cause for anxiety. It is timely that the Government should give

explanations of what has happened in the recent past and an assessment of the present and the future.

7.39 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on their achievements in the completion in the four years 1965 to 1968 of factories which in Moor space were 25 per cent. greater than in the preceding four years, and 36 per cent greater than in the preceding four years in terms of the jobs they were expected to provide, in reducing migration from Scotland to the lowest level for 10 years, and in narrowing the gap between Scotland and the United Kingdom in average weekly earnings of adult male workers in manufacturing to 2·4 per cent. compared with 7·3 per cent. in 1964".
Naturally, I am both surprised and grateful to hon. Members opposite for the persistence with which they keep presenting us with better and better opportunities of explaining to them the error of their ways. That was well demonstrated by the fact that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) asked me whether the figures we gave of jobs gained had been achieved. Actually, they refer to two years before the end of the White Paper period, so, of course, they have been achieved.
At the same time, this debate gives us the chance of giving a regular bulletin on the progress of the Scottish economy. It has all been having its effect. We have been having encouraging Scottish surveys in The Times and the Financial Times—not exactly organs of Socialist revolution. On the particular issue of jobs gains and losses, we have had since the Adjournment debate on 24th November, for which we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), support in the Glasgow Herald, the Scotsman and, indeed, in television commentary. All have it right. Everyone, it would seem has it right by now except hon. Members opposite, including "oor Jock", who persists in staring with a rabbit-like concentration on one point, like watching the white dot on the television as it is switched off.
So I am grateful for this further opportunity—and at their expense this time—for explaining the facts of Scotland's rapidly strengthening position. I appreciate their generosity, even if it is a little


belated, in providing time for me to complete the admirable account of our list of achievements which I was reciting with such conviction and force when I was brought to an untimely end by the clock a fortnight ago.
The particular complaint the Opposition have focused on with such persistence is one four-year-old estimate which was certainly not a critical part of the White Paper they are so anxious to have rewritten. When one considers how far-seeing and accurate that White Paper has been in all its essentials, how it has proved to be the spring-board of a genuine Scottish economic resurgence, it is difficult to blame them for wanting it swept under the carpet as soon as possible.
I can understand that it is an embarrassment to them to have it there as a constant reminder that the present Goverment have made a reality of regional development; something more than a token gesture to the less-well-favoured areas while the more prosperous continue to have it so good.
The present Government have made regional development a factor to be taken into account through the whole structure of economic planning, not because we have seen it as a charitable handout to the needy—although we are far from indifferent to their condition—but because we have grasped the essential truth about it: that it is as vital to the continued prosperity of the country as a whole as it is to the South West, the North East, to Scotland, Wales and the rest.
As hon. Members will have seen from recent reports of the E.E.C. visit to this country to study our methods and results, Europe is also wakening up now to the realisation that regional development is not an extra but a fundamental part of economic planning.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman says that the employment forecast was not a critical part of the White Paper, why does the Scottish Office Press statement accompanying that Paper open with the headline "More Jobs"?

Dr. Mabon: Because a part of a part is not the whole part. The hon. Gentleman wants to concentrate on one aspect of one part.
However, let me develop my speech. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fair about these things and that he will listen carefully to what I have to say, when he will then change his mind.
I want to make quite clear what it is hon. Members opposite are saying. Behind the specific complaints of lost jobs, the real truth of the charge is that the Scottish economy is faltering, that it is not in good shape, that it is not modernising itself, that it is not undergoing the fundamental regeneration it needs to take its place in the forefront of the international economic field.
If we are to discuss these issues meaningfully we have to be clear about the economic environment in which we have had to operate. I am not just referring to the periods of international monetary difficulties, the problems that have beset and in some cases are increasingly besetting European economies other than our own, both the weak and the strong.
Nor are we debating this evening the problems of the British economy as a whole, or analysing the reasons why, with the inheritance to which we succeeded, we were faced from the start with a grim battle for economic survival. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite groan. They may well do so, for they created this situation to a large extent.
There is one basic fact which illumines the whole picture. In previous crises Scotland was among those most keenly exposed to the cold winds of constraint. Under the Tories, when England had 'flu Scotland had peneumonia. This time—for the first time—in a severe period of national and international difficulty and as a direct result of deliberate and vigorous Government measures of regional development, Scotland has not been asked to bear more than she reasonably could or to put aside fundamental measures essential to her recovery.
As a result—I repeat for the first time—she has actually improved her position relative to the rest of the economy. That is by any standard quite remarkable.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is able to say that, when he knows that


he does not have the basic facts about Scotland's economy?

Dr. Mabon: I have never heard of Eve rebuking Adam, but there we are.
May I remind the hon. Lady of the position? The White Paper set seven major objectives for the economy: first, the progressive creation of new and better paid jobs with higher productivity; second, the modernisation of our industrial structure; third, the reduction of emigration; fourth, an enlarged programme of training and retraining; fifth, a massive programme of investment in houses, in roads, in new towns, in schools, in water and sewerage, in universities, in hospitals, in power stations, and many other things.

Mrs. Ewing: Mrs. Ewing rose—

Dr. Mabon: No. I cannot give way again. The hon. Lady must learn to be a democrat and listen to someone els's point point of view.
The sixth was an onslaught on slum housing, and, seventh the sweeping away of industrial dereliction.
These were real objectives setting real aims for attainment. They were goals for quite practical economic advances that would reflect—and this is the point of economic advance—in the improvement of the social and economic condition of the Scottish people.
In practice, the rundown of jobs has been very much faster than anyone foresaw—even, with respect, in that snippet of a television commentary to which the hon. Gentleman lays claim, but which we cannot find in the record. Perhaps he will find it for us. He has never quoted a figure. If he had quoted a figure he would have been the only one of all the commentators brave enough to say that our rundown was an underestimate. However we have come through that—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It was the figure for the rundown over the previous four years. Surely the safest thing would be to assume that it would continue at the same rate.

Dr. Mabon: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at his own commentaries he will find that he said the same thing

about jobs gained. This trying to be wise after the event and seeking to go back over vague references at the time of the White Paper is wrong. If he had given a figure and had said that it was to be 100,000, what a magnificently impregnable position he would be in. In fairness to him, nobody else did. No economic commentator came forward with the great argument saying that we should double or treble the figure.
The reading of all the important indicators is good, and in many the best, in years. Of course, there have been job losses and they have been severe. There has, in fact, been a faster than anticipated rundown of manpower in certain industries traditionally important in the Scottish economy such as coalmining, rail transport, marine engineering, railway locomotion, wagon manufacture and agriculture. We keep asking hon. Members opposite, and they keep evading an answer, whether they would have reversed this process. Would they keep the numbers up artificially?
The hon. Gentleman dismissed this as of no consequence; it happened before the Government came to power—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Mr. Gordon Campbell rose—

Dr. Mabon: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman while he was speaking. We must allow some time in this debate for other hon. Members as well as Front Bench Members to speak. The assumption is that the hon. Gentleman will not keep labourers on the land will not let tractors rust at the side of the fields.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not interrupt unnecessarily. He has got my argument completely wrong—100 per cent. wrong. I said that agriculture was modernising in 1960–64 and that this modernisation was bound to continue. The same applies to the coal mining industry; 127,000 jobs disappeared in four years. This applies to agriculture, coal mining and the sort of industries which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. There was no reason suddenly to suppose that this would stop, which is what the Government appeared to do.

Dr. Mabon: It is not true I was about to say that I agreed with the hon. Member except for the last bit, because


it has not stopped. The Government never claimed that it would stop. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and w is that we accept that the rate of the rundown in these two respects was faster than we expected and faster than he expected. We do not deny that it is happening. This has been shown by a very sober analysis which has been conducted not by people in the Labour Party, but by the commentators I have mentioned.
I must ask whether it is the opinion of the Opposition that that was wrong, that the Government should have stepped in and shored up these industries to get the figure which we had promulgated in the White Paper. If not, hon. Members opposite must accept that the rundown was inevitable, although they, like us, could not forecast its exact size.
So far as I know, no one would actually advocate that we should not have had this rundown and kept the poorer-paid jobs. To give him credit, tonight the hon. Member has at least grasped the fact that we are not replacing job for job inasmuch as we are replacing with a higher standard of job jobs which were previously poorly paid.
If the Opposition imply that we should slow it down, are they implying that it is job opportunities of which we are short? What do they make of the fact that demand for skilled engineering workers—and what better case than that is there—is already 50 to 60 per cent. higher this year than it was last year?
I have already explained to the House several times before, and I have done it again tonight, that two years before the end of the period in question we are well up to time, with job gains at 118,000 already achieved out of our promised figure of 134,000. Will the hon. Member be initiating a debate some time next year, or in 1971, when he is in opposition once again, and telling us that the Government deserve full congratulations for getting more than 134,000 jobs in that period, or will he be complaining that we have not reached the higher figure which he had in mind, which as yet he has not told us about, but which he thinks we should have achieved by the end of 1970? We shall wait and see.
The increase in job opportunities has been widely spread over a variety of manufacturing and service industries and reflects the high level of industrial development certificate approvals and completions in recent years, not just advance factories. If we are to bandy figures, the area of approvals in 1965–68 was at a level which is double the average for the years 1961–64. Completions in the years 1965–68 are expected, when fully manned, to provide, according to estimates given by industrialists, more than 60,000 new jobs. My right hon. Friend intends to touch on this matter towards the end of the debate and to confute hon. Members opposite.
Thus, the positive contribution of new forms of employment, one of the most vital parts of the forecast, which cannot be ignored as part of the subject of the debate, has worked out well, significantly better than we stated in the White Paper, and this is the part which the Government have, at least to some extent, had under their own hand. If we deny ourselves the right to slow down the rundown, of course we have to push on all the harder to create new jobs.
It is not just the number of new jobs, but the quality which matters and nothing indicates this more quickly than earnings. Here, again, the story is the same. The gap in average weekly earnings between Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole for adult male manual workers in manufacturing industry has fallen to less than 2½ per cent. I hope that the Scottish Nationalist Party will put that on record instead of the other figures which it keeps putting forward. We shall not be content until the gap has disappeared completely, but it has fallen significantly in the period 1964–68. In engineering and electrical goods, earnings in Scotland are nearly 26s. above the U.K. average—coming from Hamilton, the hon. Lady should know that—and in electronics they are touching 58s. above, in marine engineering nearly £1 higher, and so on.
That is why emigration tells the same story. It is not, as is so easily assumed, the unemployed who emigrates; it is the young and the skilled, the young energetic man who may have a job, but who, because of lack of job opportunity, finds that that job is too often less than his capacity warrants, or is below his


potential earning power. It is in these circumstances that the young and the skilled emigrate. Directly, the lack of job opportunities is reflected in emigration as it is in unemployment. As the House knows by this time, emigration from Scotland continues to fall, and the Secretary of State will develop this later.
The unemployment ratio, which the Opposition in their time found intractable at more than twice the Great Britain rate during their long period of office, is now down to about one and a half times that rate. So the fact is that emigration is down and the ratio is down. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) used to be good at ratios, but he has obviously missed out on this one.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The main reason why the ratio has gone down is that the English rate has gone up.

Dr. Mabon: It has gone down, whatever the reasons may be. The hon. Gentleman cannot interrupt so as to contradict me, but then proceed to give reasons why it has gone down. We could develop that argument at some other time, but the fact is that it has gone down. That fits neatly with the position about emigration. Let us not assume that emigration falls by accident. If that were true, none of us would have any policies to deal with it. Emigration falls because of definite causes and definite policies, and we are pursuing those policies successfully.
In addition to external assistance given to firms in development areas which undertake training, the Government have greatly increased the number of places available in Government training centres, from 400 in 1964 to about 1,400 in nine centres at present. The potential throughput of these centres is 2,300 men a year.
On slum clearance, between 1961 and 1964, 48,000 houses were "taken out of use" as the Act says; between 1965 and 1968 we dealt with 70,000 houses.
On industrial dereliction, since 1964, 71 schemes have been completed and grants amounting to £1·8 million have been paid. We are committed to an expenditure of about £4·5 million on schemes to be completed over the next five years or so.
I have tried to deal with the progress on seven of the major objectives which we set ourselves. My right hon. Friend will have more to say about the others, on investment, for example, which I omitted to mention. These seven successes are the facts on which to fasten, not one gloomy facet of one single set of figures.
The Opposition are like the babes lost in the wood—all they can see is one tree. Bark as they will, they are up the wrong tree.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I would remind hon. Members of Mr. Speaker's appeal for short speeches.

8.0 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this important debate, but I do not think that it would serve the cause of Scotland best if we used statistics to condemn or condone one another. I am concerned with the effect upon the economy both of the jobs that exist and the jobs in the pipeline. We are seriously concerned at a net reduction in jobs. We should not fall into the trap of accepting jobs of any kind or at any price. I know that there will be unanimous agreement on that.
I want to see greater concentration on jobs that will help the economy and therefore create prosperity. Several of the great firms in and near my constituency and many of my constituents contribute to the prosperity of our country. They succeed in creating competitive goods for export, well able to compete in the home market.
Ironically, they are hampered by three things. The first is by the difficulties encountered in increasing their labour force, both skilled and semi-skilled. Secondly, they are hampered by the restrictions on the employment of the retrained because, although the Minister of State has given the figure, 2,300 people, he did not break the numbers down nor did he give us the places. Unless we have these things it is impossible to judge the effectiveness even of that very small scheme.
Thirdly, they are being hampered by the rejection of agreements based on modern job evaluation techniques,


designed to create better wage and productivity rates and competitive prices. If wages go up and productivity remains static, sooner or later we shall be priced out of the market. The shipbuilders and boiler makers, the car industry and the aero-engine industry is affected. This has been a crucial factor in central Scotland recently.
There is a Luddite attitude which seeks to defy progress and lean on the State. If allowed to go unchecked it will ultimately cause collapse. We cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong and yet there are certain parts of industry in Scotland where just that is happening. Let us look at one or two examples. We need welders and platers. It would probably be an under-estimate if I put the figure at 1,000 on Clydeside alone. As each man is employed, other jobs are automatically created. As the hon. Gentleman knows better than I do, in that area for every single apprenticeship advertised, five boys apply. If that is not a tragedy for the future of Scotland, I do not know what is.
In Government and other pre-training centres, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are sufficient places for the right trades and the right men in sufficient numbers? Does he think that the rate of trade union acceptance is right? New projects are very relevant to this subject. Whatever we accept, let us not, in doing so, weaken the prospects. The new projects must not be endangered by short term employment from long term job industries. The construction industry alone is hampered by S.E.T., which costs it £22 million, by British Standard Time, £35 million, and is 10,000 men below strength. It has a huge housing and social needs programme to meet.
Every project on the Clyde will require a huge construction force and the question is for how long and, more important, how many? Long-term job employment should not be endangered by short term prospects. There is sound sense in regional policy, but not at any price. Will these huge forces required for the construction projects be recruited from the jobless or from the stable industries by very high and temporary wage rates? If that happens those who left the stable industries will find that their jobs will no longer be there when they wish to return.
Finally, I would turn to some of our statisticians and put them on to the hard task of job planning. The Scottish Planning Board has done some work, but much more needs doing. Once a man is jobless it is too late.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: The hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) has said that we must not condemn or condone with statistics. She has spoken of jobs, but not jobs at any price. I would probably not be here if it were not for the indifference of a Tory Government. I had to leave school when my father died. I had no option at all. I was lucky to get an apprenticeship, but when it was finished I had no job to go to. Instead there was the indignity of unemployment, going three times a week to sign on at the labour exchange. I would have been heartily glad of any job that a Government could have given me, no matter what the price. The matter of Luddites which she also raised can be dealt with more appropriately next Tuesday. The further point of the hon. Lady—the training and retraining of men and women is important.
The training and retraining of skilled men and women must redound to the benefit of the Government. The Government have speeded up the programme of training and retraining immeasurably since they came into office. The hon. Ladys' complaint is that no matter how much we are doing it is still not enough. The labour required now is much more skilled than hitherto. In 1960 a journalist in Glasgow wrote a pamphlet entitled, "A Nation of Labourers." That is what the Tory Party was creating in Scotland. Much greater skills are required now in this new Scotland.
One could be forgiven for assuming, listening to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Scottish economy was constantly running downhill. It might be thought that a visitor to Scotland would find Scots tottering about in tattered kilts. It is completely untrue. The Scottish people gave their answer to that kind of talk in 1964 and 1966. What is happening now in Scotland? Do not take my word for it, take the word of The Scotsman, which is not at all favourable to the Labour Government. It points out that


the nation is pulling itself out of the dumps into which hon. Members opposite put us.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Shame.

Mr. Buchanan: There is no doubt that my right hon. Friends are determined to succeed in their task. The chronic problems of Scotland are responding to the combined efforts of the Government and industry. Economically the country is on the move. Our greatest single problem is a geographical one. The beauties and grandeur of the Highlands and Islands and of the Borders are great tourist attractions, but they have had the inevitable consequence of forcing 4 million of the 5 million Scots to live in the central belt. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made no effort to correct this imbalance. The heavy concentration of the industry in the central belt has added greatly to the problem. There was a lack of amenities and housing surely being rectified. All of this stems from the fact that we were in the forefront of the Industrial Revolution. Scotland's reputation and prosperity was built almost entirely around the heavy industry and hon. Gentlemen opposite did nothing to correct this imbalance.
Remembering James Watt with his engine, John Neilston with his blast furnace, the great hinterland of the Lanarkshire coalfield, it was inevitable that we were in the vanguard of the industrial revolution but also that we were left with the heavy end. The great ships which sail from the Clyde were constructed to the music and the clang of heavy machinery.
My constituency is caught in a similar trap. It was paramount in the locomotive industry. The great works of the North British Locomotive Company, which were world famous, have lain derelict since 1954, a monument to the indifference and neglect of hon. Gentlemen opposite. My constituency became an industrial desert—

Miss Harvie Anderson: Am I not correct in saying that the Administration in those days heavily subsidised the works in the hon. Member's constituency but that they then failed?

Mr. Buchanan: They still closed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Is this the

hon. Members' eulogy of private enterprise since 1956?

Miss Anderson: There comes a point when one stops subsidising.

Mr. Buchanan: Of course, but the Motion refers to the net reduction in employment opportunities. What opportunities were left to the boys in Spring-burn? The British Railways works closed—

Miss Anderson: Rootes.: Miss Anderson: Rootes.

Mr. Buchanan: Without direct Government intervention to allow them to associate themselves with Chrysler, Rootes' great expansion might never have taken place. But Rootes is 10 miles from Springburn. There is also the British Railways works at Cowlairs. What plans do they have for Cowlairs? A British Petroleum Tanker farm was to be constructed there with about one job per acre—53 acres, 53 men. The Labour Administration in Glasgow stopped that. Frederick Braby's, the great galvanised sheet metal works, died. What employment opportunity existed for Springburn and Townhead people then? The chemical works and the cable works and the Saracen Foundry closed. Where are the opportunities which hon. Gentlemen created? Is this their type of employment opportunity?
What do people in my hon. Friend's constituency of Govan say about the reduction of employment opportunities in Scotland, when they think of the work in the shipbuilding yards? One may talk about the Japanese, the Swedes and the Germans building ships, but the latest report of the Geddes Committee and the setting up of the Shipbuilding Industry Board did not come quickly enough for the industry on the Clyde, and in most of Britain.
I, with some of my hon. Friends, made representations to the Department about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, and one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite jumped on the bandwagon a few days later. But, without direct Government intervention and the stimulus given by this Government, what would have been the employment opportunities for Clydeside people? This is what hon. Gentlemen opposite must answer. There is no sense talking in and statistics; they are there for all


to see. In one of our election manifestos, we said, "The road ahead will not be easy, and anyone who pretends that it is is dishonest". One can never accuse this Government of being dishonest. We had twin problems—to set the economy right and to modernise industry. To the consternation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the economy is coming right. The modernisation is taking place. Although many people are being displaced and temporarily inconvenienced, there is no doubt that industry is being modernised.
I have one complaint to make to my right hon. Friend. Regardless of what this Government are doing, there was an election in the Mile End ward of Glasgow—a 100 per cent. working-class ward—in which a Progressive Conservative candidate was successful. The Nationalist came second, and we were bottom of the poll. There is a lesson here for my right hon. Friend. He must tell the Scottish people what he is doing: this is his duty. There is no sense in telling us in the House. It is not publicised anywhere but in HANSARD, apart from a few paragraphs here and there in the quality newspapers.
But of the people in Mile End, some of them, voted Tory, or Progressive, whatever it might be. Others threw their votes into the wastepaper basket of Nationalism. My right hon. Friend fails in his duty if he does not let the people whom he represmts know what he is doing.
I have no doubt that Scotland is well on the way and that we will be given another chance to complete the job which we have started. I am unfortunately less sure about my Sassenach colleagues. But I appeal to my right hon. Friend to let his voice be heard and to let the people of Scotland know what is being done. Scotland expects that we at least will tell them what he is doing.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: The Minister of State and the Shadow Secretary of State vied with each other to score laughs tonight and proved that the music hall is not dead in Scotland. But this is a serious question and not a question of disaster or glorious successes. It is a question of degrees of failure. This Government may have done better than the Tories, but they have not achieved what they said they would, and

they could have achieved much more if they had used the right approach.
Nevertheless, my colleagues and I will be supporting the Motion in the name of the Shadow Secretary of State, for reasons which I hope to show have sound support. We also regret the net reduction of jobs in Scotland. We believe that the forecasts of the White Paper published in January 1966 were thoroughly misleading. We would even conclude that the Government's policies have fallen far short of their own expectations.
There are many examples of this. One is the closure of the Border Railway. About 200 jobs were lost and the Government did nothing to replace them. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I quote an example from my own constituency which has been aired before—the closure of the locomotive works in Inverurie and what that has done for one of Scotland's small burghs. I am not entirely blaming the Secretary of State or the Minister of State. They are just pawns, I believe, in the hands of the Treasury: they simply do what they are told. But never has there been a clearer case of Government responsibility than in the burgh of Inverurie, or a clearer case of Government failure to take that responsibility.
A year ago there were something like 580 men employed at the locomotive works, over half the male employed population of the Burgh of Inverurie. Now there are about 100. On 26th December, those 100 will be declared redundant. Hon. Members need not look at the unemployment figures for the Inverurie district, because they will not tell the story. Nine out of ten of those men have had to go away from the burgh to find jobs. Some of them—the lucky ones—have found them in Aberdeen, where they can travel back and forth, but many more—I have met them on the station platform at Aberdeen—have had to go down to Derby and further away. Others have gone to South Africa and elsewhere abroad. [AN HON. MEMBER: "To South Africa?"] Yes, to South Africa, because there are jobs there on the railways and when men want to work on the railways they cannot choose the kind of Government under which they work.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I am astonished at the hon. Member's


announcement that he is tonight supporting the Tories because of our record. Did he compare the Tory record? I was one of the victims who had to move from Scottish railways, even before Beeching, owing to redundancy, down to Plaistow in London.

Mr. Davidson: At the opening of my speech I said that the present Government had done better than the previous one, but I am illustrating an example of a very bad failure. [Interruption.] I am sorry that I did not hear that remark from the Secretary of State. Perhaps he will repeat it when he winds up the debate. I would like to refer him to the White Paper which was published in January, 1966. This is why I say that there is a clear Government responsibility in this matter, because that White Paper, wherever the fault crept in—I am not blaming individuals for this—stated clearly that there was a long-term future for this notably efficient locomotive works in the Burgh of Inverurie.
Early in November last year, before I went with an all-party delegation to the United Nations in New York, I went to see the Secretary of State. I had heard through the kindness of an hon. Member opposite what was likely to happen in Inverurie. He had warned me. I had suspected for a long time that this was coming.
I went to see the Secretary of State and tried to find out what was being done to overcome the impending disaster. I was told—this is significant, because it was the line that was pursued throughout the following months leading up to the climax when finally the works were closed—that I must not make too much of this in publicity and that I must not expose the facts, because if I did that would force the Railways Board into a corner and it would thereby be compelled to close the works earlier than it otherwise would. I accepted this. I think now that perhaps I was wrong to do so.
In any event, when I returned from the United Nations in New York, the story had broken in the Press. That was nothing to do with me. I still do not know to this day how the story came out. The whole sad story unfolded over the ensuing months. What, in effect, were the Government prepared to do? They

were prepared to spend £5,000, the price of two three-room council houses, on a publicity campaign. The results have been negative in the extreme.
It is claimed that a small electronics firm which, I believe, has a promising future was one of the side effects of that publicity campaign for jobs. The Minister of State forgets, I think, that that firm was in Inverurie long before news of the closure of the Inverurie locomotive works ever hit the Press headlines. That electronics firm was sitting there in a small works by the railway bridge in Inverurie long before and it would have expanded in one direction or another sooner or later, quite separate and distinct from what has happened at the locomitive works.
It was suggested that the intention of another small firm to come m and build a factory there—which, again, is extremely welcome—was a result of the publicity campaign. I do not know whom to believe, because I am told by somebody whose word I trust, a member of the Inverurie Town Council, that this has arisen entirely out of a local initiative and has nothing whatever to do with the Government's publicity campaign. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
When it comes to real action to assist Inverurie, what were the Government prepared to do? Were they prepared, for example, to make Inverurie into a special development area? No, they were not. I will quote from a letter from the Minister of State, written on 9th October this year, when he said that
the possibility of designating Inverurie as a special development area had been carefully examined but the conclusion reached had been that this was not justified"—
he did not say why—then the Minister of State informed me that
special development area status is intended to meet the problems of areas affected by rundown in the coalmining industry.
I know that rundown in coalmining can have devastating effects on whole areas, but so can the rundown of other important basic industries. Perhaps in writing that letter the Minister of State ignored the fact that the locomotive works in Inverurie was by far the biggest single employer in the area. There is only one other and much smaller factory in the town.
Again, in answer to a Question, when I pursued the matter with the Minister of Technology, I was told that
The Government does not consider that the circumstances of Inverurie justify its designation as a special development area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 287.]
Then there was the matter of a very promising engineering firm, the only firm, so far as I know—I had great difficulty sometimes in getting information about what was going on behind the scenes—which went so far as to put forward a carefully thought out three-year plan for taking over the works. Admittedly, it did not propose to involve itself deeply financially to begin with, but it was, in my view and in the view of several others, a solid basis for the Government to come in and use their powers under the Industrial Expansion Act—powers which they had given themselves to provide the necessary bridging finance and action—to tide over the period between the rundown of the locomotive works and the incoming of the firm. That proposal, however, was thrown out of the window. I was told that the Government had examined the proposal but that they did not consider that it offered a practical basis for an industrial investment scheme. That was in answer to a Question on 1st April, 1969.
Again, I was told that the Government had already made it clear that they were prepared to look at any proposition in connection with the Industrial Expansion Act, but, apparently, not to do any more than simply look at it. I then had a letter dated 26th November this year from the Minister of Technology in which he said that it had been decided after careful examination that the proposal did not form a basis for a scheme under the Industrial Development Act.
I come back to my original accusation. This is not the fault of the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, or even the Minister of Technology. This is directly tied up with the Treasury. It is the Treasury which has the final say and I suggest that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are merely pawns in its hands.
Yet apparently the Government were prepared to spend millions of pounds, are prepared to spend millions of pounds at this very time, and to use compulsory purchase orders, elsewhere in the United

Kingdom, and even in a place where the local people do not want it. I am referring to the Milton Keynes Development Corporation about which I have been given some information.
I should like to quote from a letter I received from the managing director of this engineering firm which has been rejected. It says:
I must thank you for the very great endeavours you have made to establish some mode of operation whereby we could have assisted, but, as you know only too well, the whole project has been handled so incompetently by the powers that be that I feel it will be a very long time before this firm again enters into such a frustrating experience.
I suggest, then, with this example I am giving, that the Government's efforts were largely window dressing.
I have a letter here from the Regional Development Division in St. Andrews House soon after the publicity campaign was launched to bring employment to Inverurie. It says:
There has been an encouraging response to the letters and publicity material about Inverurie which was sent to a large number of firms. At least ten positive enquiries relating specifically to development at Inverurie have emerged, about half from firms whose plans could involve taking over projects taking over the whole of the workshops and employing a large proportion of the existing work force. It is worth noting that in the case of almost all of these inquirers, their interest has been attracted by the existence of a large skilled labour force in the town.
a point I have put to the Government over and over again.
In answer to a Question on 9th May the Secretary of State told me—and I think this is a measure of the information which I was given all along while this controversy raged—
It would not be proper to reveal the nature of the inquiries in respect of industrial development at Inverurie which are being handled in complete confidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 139.]
Apparently, I could not be trusted, but often the way to ensure trust is to trust people; if they are trusted perhaps they will not betray the trust; but, quite obviously, if they are not given information they will use whatever means they have to discover what they can. Most of the information I obtained about what firms were interested in the locomotive works at Inverurie I received from men on the shop floor within the locomotive works.
There was this firm, Marshall and Anderson, who, I believe, make boilers, and I believe they were, and may be still, interested in the locomotive works at Inverurie. This firm was constantly held out as Inverurie's Valhalla, the answer to all Inverurie's problems just around the corner. When I asked the Minister of State why no time limit had been placed on the offer which was made to this firm by the British Railways Board I never got a satisfactory reply. I would be interested to know why no time limit was placed, because while the time seeped away there, men left Inverurie, and so the labour force gradually disintegrated until the main attraction of Inverurie as an industrial town to which industrialists might be attracted was utterly undermined, because the skilled and semi-skilled engineering labour force, which the letter I have just quoted from one Government Department said was the main attraction to any incoming industry, had dispersed and disappeared. So now Inverurie simply has to take its chance along with a hundred or more other small burghs with their individual attractions throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, and, indeed, other parts of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman feels so aggrieved and is telling us these unfortunate facts of the situation—not that they are completely so, but, still, they are unfortunate—but why does he say that the industrial fabric of the town is utterly destroyed? We intend to make sure that Inverurie will develop. We have an advance factory there, and industrial land. Two firms, possibly a third, are coming in, and the Gaskin Report shows that it must be developed. Surely the hon. Gentleman wants to help us to help it develop?

Mr. Davidson: Of course I do. The Minister of State knows that I went a very long way to try to help, and that I did a great many things off my own bat, and on a number of occasions I kept quiet when I should have liked to have spoken out. I was not referring specifically to the industrial structure of the whole town. I was referring to the ready-made engineering labour force in a particular industrial unit.
May I continue? Perhaps the Minister remembers going to the shop floor in Inverurie and referring to me as a very naive innocent. Those were his words simply because I was pursuing the claims of this particular engineering firm which I believed had great prospects.
In a letter of 11th March to the Minister of State, I suggested that the piecemeal dissection of this industrial unit would mean the loss of the main attraction to any incoming industrialist. I went on to say that of the representatives of three firms that had already inspected the works only one had retained any interest. I put it to him that, although there was an element of risk attached to the proposals which had been submitted to the British Railways Board, nevertheless, the firm had an encouraging growth potential and worldwide marketing facilities, and I said:
In my view Inverurie is unlikely to get any better proposition.
Events have, unfortunately, proved me right.
In a letter of 2nd April, 1969—and perhaps the House might like to ask who is the naive innocent—I wrote to the Clerk of the North East Scotland Development Committee:
I was a little dismayed on Friday at the way in which those attending the meeting at the Town Hall, Inverurie, allowed themselves to be talked into subjection by [the Minister of State's] well-known oratorical skill. I would like to make the following points to your Committee. [The Minister of State] is just the Government's front man…".
Perhaps I should have used the word "troubleshooter", it might have been more apt—
…in Scotland. Neither he nor his wingers from the Board of Trade and Ministry of Transport have any real power to bring industry to Inverurie. The real power rests with the D.E.A., the Treasury and B.O.T.A.C. If the Government is allowed to get off the hook (and all my efforts over the past four months have had three simple objectives—to put the Government on the hook, to publicise the Inverurie situation, and to keep the work force together) they may well turn round in six months' time and say, 'Sorry, nobody bought the workshops, but there are only 150 employees now left so you have no real problem'. I suggest that this is roughly the position today, and that £5,000 for a publicity scheme is the very least that Inverurie should expect, from the Government, in view of their promises. We should look for something much more substantial if it is necessary to


bridge the gap between the British Railways rundown and a takeover by an incoming industry.
I continued:
A nice, cosy, 'all in this together' attitude by the Government, local authorities and your Committee will undoubtedly suit the Government admirably. It will enable them to share out the blame if nothing very exciting comes out of the publicity campaign. I, for one, fear that the chances of some industry coming forward to take over the workshops and the work force, lock, stock and barrel, is unlikely. Under the Industrial Expansion Act 1968 the Government gave themselves all the necessary financial and other powers. It remains to be seen whether they will use them.
Of course, the Government did not use them, and events have proved me right.
I must watch the time, but I believe that hon. Members on this side will agree that this is perhaps one of the best examples of Government failure that we have had—

Mr. Lawson: Is not the hon. Gentleman a Liberal? Will he tell us since when the Liberal Party has stood for the State accepting all the responsibility about which he is talking?

Mr. Davidson: If the hon. Member will look back in HANSARD he will see that we supported the Act. I do not think he requires any further answer.
In March this year, in a discussion with the county clerk, the Provost and a member of the Board of British Railways, I suggested the possibility of a take-over of the whole works, either by the Board 01 Trade or by the county council, and their development as an industrial estate. When the county council made an offer early in July it was rejected and not used even as a basis for negotiation. Whether this was the fault of the Board or of the Government, I have no idea. The date was 4th July, if the Minister of State is interested. It would have been much better if the Government had kept right out of it and left the development to the county council and to the clerk to the North East Development Committee.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the way in which the clerk to the North East Development Committee, who also is the county clerk, has acted rapidly and effectively to try to bring industry into Inverurie since the failure of the Government to remedy the situation. The

labour force is now down to about 100. After Christmas it will no longer exist. If the Government had been a little more open, if they had not conducted the whole matter in secrecy by playing their cards close to their chests, perhaps we might have had a better result.
The Secretary of State is powerless to bring in new industry. He is unable to affect the rate of redundancies and unable to obtain a postponement of the closure. This has been shown by the facts. It may be true to say that the British Railways Board is in the hands of the unions to whom it has to pay attention and therefore has been unable to do what it would most like to do.
When I wrote a desperate letter to the Minister of State on 8th September just a few days before the first redundancies were declared it was several weeks before I even received an acknowledgment. By then the wheels had started to turn and it was too late.

Mr. Lawson: Is this a debate on Inverurie or a debate on employment in Scotland? Can we be given some guidance on this matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in order in what he is saying, although it is being said at great length.

Mr. Davidson: It is about unemployment in Scotland and, in case the hon. Gentleman is not aware, Inverurie is in Scotland. I had reached the final point of my speech.
I am not trying to allocate blame and perhaps the Minister in his reply will allocate or disclaim the blame. It seems to me that a game of three-cornered pig in the middle has been played over this whole issue. The difference is that it is not a pig that is in the middle, but the work force of Inverurie. What has been pushed from corner to corner is the future employment, with which is tied the lives of those workers and that of their children, who are to be uprooted and moved to other parts of the country. The three corners in the game have been the Government, the British Railways Board and the unions.
There is a very strong feeling among union members in Inverurie that because they are a small element of their particular union they have to some extent


been sold down the river for the benefit of the greater majority of that union in Glasgow and elsewhere. I have had this view clearly put to me by members of the union.

Mr. Buchanan: That is most unjust.

Mr. Davidson: Who, then, should bear the ultimate blame for this fiasco? Should it be the Secretary of State or the Treasury? I leave it to the House to judge. Here is one example where complete failure by the Government has resulted in the whole fabric of employment in a burgh in Scotland being completely disrupted.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) has made a plea for his constituency. I can understand what he is doing, but he is due for some congratulation in succeeding as a spokesman for the Liberal Party on the strength of the one point which he has raised and in taking all of his time in making that point. I do not quarrel with the issue that he raised, but if that is the contribution of the Liberal Party in a debate of this kind I hope that it will be duly noted by the electorate.
I come back to the main point of the Motion. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has demolished the Opposition's case on two grounds. The first is the backlog that has dogged both parties when in power, embracing the problem of the rundown of the older industries. The second is the lack of initiative by the Conservative Party when in power, for which it must bear responsibility, in not initiating early enough the educational retraining courses in further training colleges in link-ups with schools and the linking of industry and the universities in industrial research.
This goes back to the years 1958 and 1959. I can recall my hon. Friends initiating debates on further education in which we pointed out that changes in industry concerning personnel would go over from the dungarees to the white coats. We used the Galbraith aphorism that unless industry learned to deal with science and maths, the alternative was

to learn Russian. We urged the need for further training of young people.
In the past, concentration of capital and skills has been on older heavy industries—coal, iron, shipbuilding, heavy engineering, jute and wool. In the changeover to new modern industries I remind hon. Members of the size of the problem. Between 1946 and 1968 the number of coal miners was reduced from 90,000 to 43,000, the number of workers in shipbuilding and ship repairing reduced from 50,000 to 33,000 and in marine engineering from 21,000 to 10,000. There was also the effect on agriculture of mechanisation. The total reabsorbed in industry was 200,000. It stands to the credit of this Government that that has been done.
We are, of course, still left with the problem of restructuring Scottish industries. This has reduced the role of the older industries and relegated the need for the new type of industry which Scotland is now past acquiring. It calls for a restructuring—a word seldom used four or five years ago—and preparation of sites and services in readiness for the coming of new industries.
Apparently hon. Members opposite want to abandon the regional policies instituted by the present Government. Almost 10 per cent. of the population and 40 per cent. of the total grants which come from the Local Employment Acts goes to Scotland. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) was not present to hear some of the facts which could enlighten her and some members of her party. Investment grants for industry have been doubled for areas such as Scotland. These have a clear advantage vis-à-vis other areas in England. Parts of Scotland which previously were excluded from receiving these grants, such as Galloway, are now included.
Public capital investment in 1966 to 1969 increased by over 50 per cent. compared with the previous three years. By any standard that is a vast increase and of course it affects job opportunities. Hon. Members opposite are making a mountain out of a molehill when they try to argue about a specific statement in a paragraph of a paper which generally in the event has been justified.
Alongside the deterioration in the heavy industries has been a crying need


for training of manpower. We have been urging the need for diversification and innovation in technical engineering on more industrialists and there are clear signs of an improvement. In Strathclyde University there are 300 joint university-industry projects taking place. The great weakness is that Scottish industry is not taking advantage of the information being provided, by translating the ideas into commercial production.
A word now about mergers affecting Scottish industry, We do not hear much of the effect which the G.E.C./A.E.I. merger had, when jobs were lost in the South, but when there was a great advantage to places in Scotland.

Mr. R. W. Brown: My hon. Friend has hit a very pertinent point. About 6,000 jobs were lost in London, but we did not argue the case. We believed that it was right. I would remind him that when the railways were being run down it was Dr. Beeching who did it deliberately as part of Tory Party policy, to reduce the labour force. Where did the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) think the labour force would be reduced, if not in his own area?

Mr. Hannan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
As the character of industry changes the restructuring of industry requires new skills from men and women. The hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) is the only hon. Member opposite who has so far grasped this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were pushed into forming Stirling University, but it has been left to this Government to make new strides in education.
In 1964, there were only four Government training centres in Scotland. That was our heritage. They were producing 400 trainees a year. Today, there are nine centres, producing 1,400 trainees a year, and another is due to be completed in Dundee. In the past three years training capacity in Scotland has trebled, whereas in the rest of the country it has only doubled. This is an indication of the Government's special concern for Scotland. Industry, too, is making a major contribution to the industrial training boards. There are now 25 operating in Scotland, training 12,500 people.
I am astonished that so many people in Scotland do not know that there is a shortage of skilled labour. Recently, employers were asked what attracted them to Scotland. The answers in order of importance were (a) availability of trainable manpower; (b) local authority co-operation; (c) Government grants. When they were asked what factors were restricting growth, strangely enough they came out with the same answer—the shortage of trained manpower. Only last week a modern factory on the Queenslie Estate, where there are good working conditions, had to close because of a shortage of woman-power. I am sure that that statement will be corroborated by hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown).
With fewer workers, the electricity industry is producing more power. With half the number of miners that there used to be a few years ago, coal production has been increased. Is it part of the Opposition's case that the future prosperity of Scotland is to be founded on the uneconomic use of labour in any sector of industry? I hope that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) will note my question and answer it, because a similar question was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East. This increase in production is to be found even in those industries on which S.E.T. is levied. Despite S.E.T., the construction industry has improved its productivity with marginally fewer workers. What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to that?
I ask the House to consider the unemployment figure of 80,000. For many years the Scottish rate was twice that of the national average. Since 1966 it has fallen significantly, but still perhaps not as much as it should have done. The ratio is now 1½ to 1, and that is a very good figure when compared with the situation in any of the other 10 regions listed by the Department of Employment and Productivity. Has an analysis been made of this hard core of 80,000 people? Of whom does it consist? Does it include men and women? How long have they been unemployed?
In April, 1966 the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" published the results of a survey carried out by a working party on the


manpower situation, and some remarkable facts were disclosed. For example, it said in its summary:
The survey indicated that 60 per cent. of men wholly unemployed, claimants and non-claimants, would be difficult to place in a job on personal grounds.
Nearly three-quarters of that category in turn were placed in this group because of their age or their physical or mental condition.
To support that, I propose to quote a statement made, not by any Socialist, nor even in a Socialist magazine, but by a redoubtable organisation, the Scottish Council for Industry and Development. In paragraph 17 of its submission to the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs it said:
85,000 people are registered as unemployed in Scotland. But only 28,000 of these were last employed in manufacturing and in a recent survey less than 6,000—in the whole of Scotland—are assessed by the Ministry of Labour as being immediately suitable for work in industry without retraining, or moving house. A few of these are skilled people. Of those unemployed who were engaged in non-manufacturing work, only a small proportion will be able to work in factories without retraining.
The fault lies not on this side of the House, but on that.
Paragraph 19 of the same report states:
While the shortage of skills bears particularly heavily upon the newer and fast-growing sections of industry, which require quite new kinds of skill, it also affects adversely a broad area of longer-established engineering and other industries.
Hon. Members opposite who put down a Motion in such terms as these should pay attention to some of the facts of life. They remind me of the teacher of tender years who was trying to impart some elementary biology to her class of rather precocious 11 and 12-year-olds by using the example of bees and flowers, when one youngster, more knowing than the others, whispered to his friend, "You know, a woman come to her time of life—its high time someone told her the facts of life".
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are in the same position. They come to certain conclusions, and then look for evidence to justify them.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: It would no doubt be very convenient for hon.

Members opposite if we were to discuss something quite different from the Motion, but I must bring the House back to the subject of the loss of jobs predicted originally by the Secretary of State in January, 1966, in Cmnd. 2864. I sometimes wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever thought to himself of the field day he would have had if he had been in Opposition now and throwing the shortfall back at the Government of the day. Yet, as Secretary of State for Scotland, he has to compare a net gain of jobs in Scotland of over 30,000 in the years 1960–64 with his own dreadful and deplorable record of converting that gain into a net loss of about 35,000.
Listening to hon. Members opposite, and particularly to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), I almost began to think that perhaps this extraordinary reversal had nothing at all to do with the present Government; that it was not their fault. We were being invited to believe that by a most extraordinary coincidence, which had nothing at all to do with the present Government, there was a sudden change in 1964—[HON. MEMBERS "There was."]—about 14th or 15th October—and the change was from a net gain of jobs in the previous year to a net loss, as we now have.
It was a little unkind of the Secretary of State to make his hon. Friend the Minister of State reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman won the toss as to which of them should start and finish for the Government. I say that because although the Minister of State has many good qualities one of them is not speaking at the beginning of a debate. He said, speaking at very great speed, no doubt hoping that no one would notice, just how unfair it was to select this one minor fact in this White Paper—this question of jobs lost on which no one had ever placed emphasis—and make a big issue of it.
The Minister has obviously not been reading the words of his right hon. Friend who, in his introduction to the White Paper, said that the Government's plan
…is to speed up the evolution of a modern industrial structure in Scotland, providing more jobs and stemming the outward flow of young Scots to the South.


Then, suddenly, just before the election in 1966, this was produced with a great splash everywhere, telling people that more jobs would be produced by this Government. Now, that policy has failed, and is seen to have failed, and it is said to be a minor factor in which no one is interested.
But the Minister of State did not stop there. He said that not only was the jobs question irrelevant, but that everything in the White Paper—except the small matter of the jobs, which was unfortunate—had proved perfectly accurate. Is this so? On page 63, referring to housing, we read:
The rate of house building will be increased with the initial aim of achieving a programme of about 50,000 houses a year by 1970.
How accurate is that? The section on roads says that the main set-up and the connections with the motorways in England will be finished by 1970. Will they? Of course not, and the Secretary of State knows it. Therefore, when the Minister of State says that all this is so accurate and that it is churlish to mention jobs, he is talking through his hat, because this has proved a completely inaccurate document. This brings me to its production in the first place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn cogently asked how it was that we suddenly got among the figures in the White Paper a figure for job losses of only about 70,000 over the five-year period. The White Paper also says that there is no reason to think that the loss of jobs that there has been up to now will continue. Why do we suddenly have this change of heart about January, 1966, when the Secretary of State could fly into print and produce this favourable picture of a reduction in job losses and of the job gains carrying on, admittedly not as high as under the Tory Government, but pretty high all the same?
It would not take a very perspicacious person to conclude that the Secretary of State had to produce this document simply because it was a couple of months before an election. About four months before, his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) had produced a National Plan for the country as a whole. Somebody asked him, about September, 1965, "Will there be a Scottish National Plan?", and the Secretary

of State replied. "Yes, I will produce one." Thereupon, in the autumn of 1965, he set his Department to work. The result was that, in January, 1966, he had to find a Scottish plan which had favourable figures to enable him to get some good headlines and good copy for the election.
That is why this chicken has now come home to roost. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this question. Despite all this controversy about this loss of jobs, which is the Secretary of State's most notable achievement in this field during his five years of office, and despite all the inquisitions, there seems to be remarkable confusion about the real reasons even among the Government themselves.
The Minister of State said this evening, and certainly the other night, that a large part of the decline in jobs was due to the decline in employment in coal mining. That sounds very plausible, but it is not so plausible if we look carefully at the figures. The decline in employment in coal mining is a little higher than had been forecast, but not very much higher. It was estimated at 16,500 and, in fact, has been a little over 20,000. That is a decline of about 5,000. We are not worried about a decline of 5,000; we are concerned about a decline of 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000.
The Minister of State asserted that this decline in mining was unexpected. The officers in his Department were asked about it when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. They said that the forecasts about mining had been made not by them, but by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, as it then was—and apparently even the Ministry of Fuel and Power did not know that this decline in coal mining would take place. The sudden acceleration in the fall of the number of jobs in mining has been given as the principal excuse why the forecasts were wrong, but the difference is only 5,000, which is not a major factor in a loss of over 35,000 jobs. Indeed, the loss in male jobs is even greater.
No part of the Government's case stands up to examination. It amounts to a lot of sound and fury, as usual produced admirably by the Minister of State, although, by misfortune to him, he did not produce it at the end of the debate; he produced it at the beginning of the debate and has had it pulled to pieces in


the debate. I wish that he had been here a few moments ago when I was pulling it to pieces. The Government's case has been shown to be exaggerated or inaccurate.
I will conclude so as to let other hon. Members speak, although no one, I hope, suggests that I have spoken for too long. I am anxious not to leave the debate in an unconstructive frame of mind. One of the troubles when we have been pointing out these Government failures over the last few years to maintain the number of new jobs has been that every time the Secretary of State or the Minister of State has blown up in a great flurry of indignation at the very suggestion that anything was wrong. I suggest to them, and particularly to the Minister of State, that they will be better advised to listen carefully to some of the suggestions which are made. The Minister of State becomes very anxious when anyone mentions selective employment tax. Once, in Committee upstairs, he "blew his top", if I may use the phrase, and said that it was wrong to introduce into a debate on tourism the question of S.E.T. He was very indignant about it.
Both Ministers would be well advised to look for the reasons why their policy has failed. They cannot be pleased that a gain of jobs has been converted into a loss of jobs. Could not the reason possibly be that those who said all along that the introduction of discrimination against the service industries would be harmful to Scotland were right? The Secretary of State flew into print fairly early in the S.E.T. argument and said that it would be good for Scotland. In what respect has it been good for Scotland? If he looks at the figures in his own White Paper of the previous increase in jobs under a Tory Government, he will see that it took place in the service industries.
If that gain has been converted into a loss at the same time as he introduced discrimination against the service industries, surely there is a prima facie argument that that is responsible for the policy failure. If the Secretary of State looks more carefully at the figures he will see that one of the biggest drops in employment is one of 30,000 in the distributive trades.
One would need to be a great supporter of the Secretary of State and of the present Government to pretend that this loss of 30,000 in the distributive trades had nothing to do with discrimination in the service industries. The Secretary of State would be well advised to take a lesson from those who have said that S.E.T. is an inhibition to the Scottish economy. I believe that we have been right all along on this point. The fact that the Government have deliberately tried to throw a smokescreen up when anybody criticised S.E.T. has led them to this deplorable record in the provision of new jobs which they are defending this evening. If the Secretary of State does nothing else, I ask him to go to his colleagues and say, "It has been pointed out to me, and it is proved, that the discrimination against service industries loses jobs in Scotland and we therefore wish this discrimination ended".
May I make one other concrete suggestion which I hope the Secretary of State will take as a constructive suggestion. As it is clear that we are losing more jobs in Scotland than any of us would wish to do, is it not arguable that one of the principal factors is the increased cost of transport? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think it worth while listening to what I am saying. I take it that he is to reply to the debate. I am trying to be constructive. If there has been a great drop in employment in the distributive trades, and if we are losing jobs in Scotland faster than we wish, surely the question of the cost of transport must be relevant. A country like Scotland, at the end of long lines of communication, depends more than any other part of the United Kingdom on the cost of transport.
Will not the Secretary of State therefore agree that it would be helpful in encouraging industry to come to Scotland if we had some abatement of the terrific increases in petrol and licence duty, some abatement of the extra burden on transport caused by classing it as a service industry and putting selective employment tax on it, and some relief from the fact that the provision of new equipment in transport, such as lorries, is not eligible for investment allowances as it was in the past?
If the right hon. Gentleman will accept that this is bound to have a disincentive effect upon new industries coming into Scotland, he will realise why he is having to defend this loss of jobs. If the Secretary of State can only grasp those suggestions he will have a reply when people say, as they will, "You have lost so many jobs for Scotland. What are you going to do about it?" If he can tell us what he is going to do about it, we shall be very happy.
The Government are accused of having produced an inaccurate document for electoral purposes in 1966. The inaccuracy is beyond dispute. The Government's responsibility is beyond dispute. They ought to be men enough to admit it and do something to put it right.

Mr. Speaker: I appealed earlier for short speeches. I am sorry that not every hon. Member has responded to that appeal.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: The cause of Scotland's present unemployment problems is well known and has existed for a long time, namely, the fact that we have been far too dependent on ou.r traditional heavy industries, and these are nearly all now declining industries. Both Front Benches have agreed on this. Agriculture, coalmining, railways, shipbuilding and, even in my own constituency, jute are all declining industries.
I shudder to think what would have happened to the people of Scotland, with the sort of unemployment figures that we might have had, if we had had a separate Scottish Parliament. In spite of all the propaganda that we get from the Nationalists about our London-based Government dominating the economy, as We heard in an interjection from one hon. Member not long ago, unemployment has been allowed to increase in England and around London in order to keep down the unemployment rate in Scotland, and a considerable amount of so-called London-based Government money has been used to help us to do it. Nobody disputes that Scotland has had more than her fair share of this money.
We must consider how the two alternative Governments have tackled this problem. To get a clear picture we

must return to the Distribution of Industry Act, passed during the time of the first Labour Government. That began the policy of distributing industry fairly. Stemming from that, cities such as Dundee, which were formerly almost exclusively dependent on one industry, became highly diversified. In addition, although workers in the Dundee jute mills were badly paid and suffered bad conditions of employment, because of the introduction of new industries through the operation of industrial development certificates, new industries which were well paid and which gave their workers good modern conditions, even the workers in the jute mills became much better off.
If a group of new industries pays high wages and offers good conditions, the older industries have to improve their conditions, because their employers have to compete for labour and have to improve wages and conditions for their workers. The whole city benefits, not just that section fortunate enough to get jobs in the new industries. It is important not only that we should have jobs, but that they should be good, well-paid jobs in good conditions.
Let us consider what the previous Government did. In my own city we now have a slight recession in the jute trade with unemployment at a little over 3,000 a figure which is considered to be disastrous. But under the previous Government the figure was 5,000 in 1962 and 9,000 in 1952. During the 'thirties it averaged 30,000 for many years. Yet today a figure of just over 3,000 is considered disastrous.
The last Government did not make any serious attempt to distribute industry, so much so that industrial development certificates became a farce and twice as many were granted in London as in the whole of Scotland. The present Government have tightened the procedure tremendously in the London area and succeeded in getting far more industry to Scotland.
I was a member of the Scottish Select Committee with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), who must have heard this because it is on the record, when we interviewed representatives of the Board of Trade. I asked why it was that the industrial development certificate policy had been so successful under the present


Government and so unsuccessful under the previous Government. They gave the explanation quite openly—because the present Government believed in distributing industry, and the inference was that the previous Government did not.
The other thing that sickens me about the Opposition is that they constantly talk about cutting public expenditure. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is a typical example. He made a famous speech in Stonehaven in which he said to the people that
Every £1 of public expenditure is £1 less in your pockets.
In the same speech he went on to say that he welcomed increased subsidies to farmers, increased grants for the fishermen and higher subsidies for fishing vessels. I checked over the following two months and every vote that he cast in this House was for increased public expenditure. When we get down to details, hon. Members opposite are in favour of public expenditure, but when it comes to a general argument they say that they are opposed to it.
This is the sort of humbug that we get from them. Not long ago we had the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) visiting my constituency. He did not exactly mention the aluminium smelter, but everyone knew what he was referring to. He said that the number of jobs this amount of money would produce did not justify the expenditure. Did hon. Members opposite vote against the smelter? Not they. They say when talking in general terms that they are against it, but when it comes down to it they vote for items which will result in increased Government expenditure.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Mr. Gordon Campbell rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches and the winding up speeches have yet to come.

Mr. Doig: I will end there and hope that what I have said keeps the debate going.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I do not intend to take long tonight, because I want to give the Secretary of State time to answer some of the points which have been

made in the debate. He has plenty for which to answer. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has tried to bait me on certain matters, but I will try to avoid the temptation of dealing specifically with what he has said so that I may deal with what is of real importance in the debate. I do, however, thank the hon. Member for the honour he does me in reading all my speeches. I know that he hangs on my words, because he told me over a year ago that he was taking a great interest in them.
If we have a Government that can manage the economy properly then we can have resources to devote to the things which I say are necessary. It is when we have the economy of the country badly managed that we have to scrutinise every penny of Government expenditure and make certain that our measures are effective in getting Scottish development policy right.
Contrary to what the Minister of State said earlier, there is nothing in what we have said to decry what is going on in Scotland. We want to see Scotland progress and the speeches of my hon. Friends tonight bear this out. We want to see greater progress and that is what the debate is about. It is the job of the Opposition to show the Government up when they have fallen down on the job. The Minister of State referred with great pride to visitors coming from abroad to see how regional policies work in Scotland. He stood there taking credit as though the development policies have come from his Government and his party.
I would remind him that development policy for Scotland started under a Conservative Government and that it was a Conservative Government that first brought the proper ideas of developing policies into force. I would remind him that it was a Conservative Government that brought the strip mill to Scotland.
It was a Conservative Government that brought the motor car industry to Scotland, contrary to the impression given by the hon. Gentleman in a television broadcast. In addition, the new roads, the bridges and all the infrastructure of development, for which, incidentally, the Secretary of State takes so much credit when he is to be seen cutting tapes, opening this, that and the next project, all of which have helped Scotland, were


planned and made possible under a Conservative Government.
Therefore, before the Minister of State tries to take credit for these things as though his party and his Government had a monopoly of success in development matters, let him cast his mind a little further back than 1964, because development in Scotland started long before then.
I support strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) said when I say that we, too, believe in the quality of jobs we get. This was borne out in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). At the same time, I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) that we believe in the modernisation of industry. We do not necessarily believe that industries which, in terms of Scotland's long-term economic progress, are likely to contract for economic reasons should be bolstered up. We want to see our modern industries moving forward to ensure a balanced economy in Scotland. At the same time, we believe in training. This is one of the more effective ways in which we can spend our money in developing industry in Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) must be patient.
When the hon. Member for Maryhill refers to the training centres, he should remember that including the centres then being planned there were seven for Scotland when the Labour Government came into power in 1964. Again, therefore, the hon. Member should not take credit for what a Conservative Government had already carried out and planned.

Mr. Hannan: Mr. Hannan rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot give way. The hon. Member has had his chance to speak and time is short.
This debate has shown that taking a comparison between 1960–64 and 1964–68, which are the two periods the Government have chosen in their White Paper, not only were we in the Conservative Government prepared and able to create a great number of new jobs, but that, at the same time, we were able to cope with declining industries and the loss of jobs in those industries.
The Minister of State spoke about the white spot disappearing off the television screen. It is much more likely to be the white spot of his White Paper getting further and further away as its targets become ever more difficult to reach. The white spots which the hon. Gentleman sees disappearing are from his own White Paper.
When we compare the years 1960–64 and 1964–68 and we realise our success in those years, with a net gain of 30,000 new jobs as against a net loss during the last four years of 67,000, this puts properly into perspective the failure of the Government's policies which we condemn this evening.
The difference between the two parties is our success in managing the economy. The Minister of State turned to the unemployment figures, and I would like to deal quickly with them. He said that England had 'flu whereas Scotland had pneumonia. Let the hon. Gentleman look at the unemployment figures. The only reason why the ratio appears to be better is that the average level of unemployment of the United Kingdom as a whole has been higher. He should not be content, simply because both countries now perhaps have pneumonia, to regard this necessarily as progress.
Again, let the lion. Gentleman consider industrial activity. During the years from 1960 to 1964, there was a 15-point improvement in industrial activity in Scotland as against an increase of only 9 points between 1964 and 1968. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn said, this failure in the growth rate of our Scottish economy is one of the main causes at the root of the Government's failure to cope with the decline in the number of jobs in industry in Scotland.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State—the Minister of State ducked this question—what he believes to be the effect of the selective employment tax on Scotland. As we know, from Parliamentary Answers, it has drained £8 million a year from Scotland net, even after taking into account R.E.P. and so on—

Mr. William Hamilton: Nonsense.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member says, "Nonsense." He should look


at the—[Interruption.] Yes, we will abolish S.E.T. Let the hon. Member look at Questions answered by his own Ministers. Let him look at the loss of 30,000 jobs in distribution. Let the Secretary of State consider paragraph 137 of his own White Paper, in which he says:
…there will go a growth in employment in the service sector…this will be a sign of progress.
Does he count the loss of 30,000 jobs as a sign of progress?
The Government turn their Amendment on four things—floor space which they have created, jobs which they have expected to provide, emigration, and the relative level of weekly earnings. What is the use of creating more floor space in factories unless one has jobs and people to fill them? It is jobs and people at work that we are talking about. What is the use of empty advance factories to Scotland's unemployment problem? There is not much life and soul in an empty factory.
As to the jobs that they expected to provide, this is more Socialist pie-in-the sky. They said that there would be an increase of 60,000 by 1970. So far, there has been a loss of 67,000. On the Government's own record, we can show that we have to treat their expectations very lightly indeed. As we know, their expectations are entirely different from their performance. As usual with a Socialist Government, it is jam tomorrow and not today. Prosperity is always around the corner.
The third matter on which they rest the Amendment is emigration. Let the Government face the record. In five years of Labour government there has been a loss of 193,000 people from Scotland—26,000 more than in the comparable period under a Conservative Government.
Finally, on weekly earnings, we welcome the fact that the gap has narrowed between Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom, but it is small consolation to people in Scotland that this gap has narrowed if the jobs are not there in which they can earn these wages.
What this debate has shown conclusively is that the number of jobs in Scotland is declining and we ask the

Secretary of State whether he is content with that. It is people at work that we are concerned about. This is what the debate is about. The Government have not only failed to meet their own target and expectations; they have also failed Scotland, and it is for this that I ask my hon. Friends to reject their Amendment.

9.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I had hoped to hear something in this debate that would have given me cause to get on with new and constructive suggestions thrown up from the party opposite, who were determined to do something for Scotland because it was in such a terrible and deplorable state. For one moment, I thought that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)—he is getting weaker every day—was going to offer to reduce the price of beer by 2d. a pint. What we have had is a short debate, of three hours. If Scotland's economy had been in as parlous state as these people suggest, we should have been having a debate on two days, as we used to have year after year—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Now answer the question.

Mr. Ross: I will answer the questions in my own way and will make my own speech, and the hon. Member can go and open bazaars as much as he likes.
At least the party opposite have the courage to give us the chance to answer some of their points, but I am surprised at the narrow and sterile point which they have raised. In January, 1966, we produced the White Paper. It was an estimate of what we would lose. Let me tell the hon. Member for Ayr and anyone else who is interested that we did not suddenly think in the month of September that we would need to produce that White Paper. Had the hon. Gentleman been here he would have known that it had been promised long before, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite were asking week after week when it was coming. It was not produced purely and simply by politicians but by the Scottish Economic Planning Board. He asked about the Minister of Power producing figures and estimates in relation to mining. Who else should? The Minister of Power was responsible for the pits, the Minister of Power was in touch with the


National Coal Board, from which he got the estimates. If the hon. Gentleman does not know this, it is time he did, that the Ministry of Power was itself represented on the Economic Planning Board. The matter went from there to the Economic Planning Council. It is quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that this was just casually thought up and thrown in in the month of January.
I am surprised indeed that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have concentrated on these sterile arguments and figures after all the explanations they have been given, and that they have failed to do real justice to the continuing problems of Scotland and the success of our policies, and that they have not demonstrated to us how those policies could have been improved.
We have made a reality of regional development and regional planning. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was quite right when he spoke of this. We have not concentrated just on Central Scotland. We have dealt with planning of the Highlands—

Mr. Manuel: A thing the Tories never did.

Mr. Ross: —and have instituted an executive instrument which, for the first time, gives some hope to the Highlands where the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board says that it is not death they are talking about now in the Highlands: it is life. I wish the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr would have the courtesy just to sit quiet. I did not interrupt him.
The problems of the Central Belt are crucial as are the problems of the Highlands, the North-East and the Borders. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know who is stultifying development in the Borders. It is the friends of hon. Gentlemen who have moved the Motion tonight. The Development Plan offers possibilities of development there, but we have not even been able to get the land on which to build the houses.
The scars of the north-east, the southwest, even Tayside, may be smaller than those of Central Scotland, but I can assure lion. Gentlemen opposite and all the House that their wounds are much deeper. Because we realise this and care

about it we have made nearly the whole of Scotland a development area, and we have created the instrument of the Highlands and Islands Development Board with real powers. We have got together in Scotland for planning purposes men from the universities, men from the local authorities, men from both sides of industry, and these are the people who are today studying the problems, and these are the people who today are inviting me to give them more and more information on which we can base accurately our targets. We have embarked recently upon a comprehensive study of the opportunities for growth presented by the changing structure in the west of Scotland. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that the only thing done by their party when it was in office was to produce the Central Scotland Plan. There was nothing in it about industry or about the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It did not even include Dundee. On 3rd December, 1963, the final words of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, after 13 years, were these:
…this is the first attempt really to get things in Scotland put right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 1105.]
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that what people wanted were jobs. Does he realise that from the end of 1962 through 1963 the monthly average of unemployment in Scotland was oven 100,000 What is the good of a job if a man is not in it, if he is not working? In February 1963, there were 136,000 unemployed. Compare these to the figures which we have had today.
I realised that when we set a target for a considerable reduction in the migration from Scotland we were going out on a limb. We proclaimed that this was one of the important factors which showed how Scotland was doing. It was suggested in the Central Scotland Plan that if migration continued at the same rate it would probably frustrate the economic growth of Scotland. The published figure at that time available to the House showed that migration was running at the rate of 29,000 in 1961–62. The following year it had risen to over 30,000, and for June 1963–64 the figure was running at the rate of over 40,000 a year. That was the trend which we


inherited, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to know exactly how this trend is affected by events in Scotland, let him read Lord Clydesmuir, who wrote on 24th February, 1967, that as unemployment in Scotland either rises or falls, it is followed some 18 months later by a corresponding rise or fall in emigration from Scotland and that a large part of the explanation of the high net loss of population from Scotland in 1965 and 1966 was to be found in the general state of the Scottish economy from 1963 to 1964 when unemployment was high.
I do not ask that the Government be congratulated for all that they have done; the achievements of Scotland are the achievements of the people of Scotland. Local authorities, industry, trade unions and everyone else must co-operate to see this through. The latest figure, from June 1968 to June 1969, shows that migration has been reduced to 25,000, the lowest for a decade, and the third successive reduction, and this is a matter for congratulation to all who played their part.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), when he plays this numbers game, does no credit to himself. We have had tremendous success in getting new industry into Scotland. That is why we are ahead of target in the provision of new jobs, which is what really matters. Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that we should not have accepted the indications given by industry in 1965 and in the White Paper of what the continued loss would be.
People were saying that the drain from agriculture and the switch to mechanisation had gone as far as it was likely to go. When the coal mining industry made certain suggestions, were we to disbelieve them? Have hon. Gentlemen opposite forgotten the development of nuclear power and the discovery of North Sea gas which have made a considerable difference to the targets of employment in the fuel industry?
What has happened is that we have had an accelerated rundown in those industries which were the weakest in Scotland and at the same time have had a greater run in of efficient, new, sophisticated and desirable industries.
It shocks me to listen to hon. Gentlemen. I have with me a special survey published by the Financial Times on 3rd November this year. Here are a few examples from that survey:
Scotland—good reason to be pleased…implications for the future of a decade of change…foreign investment diversifies industry…
There is a story there that according to the Scottish Council's figures there were 89 United States-controlled companies in Scotland on 1st January, 1969, representing an investment of £231·6 million. Five years ago American investment stood at less than half that figure.
What was the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate saying four years ago? On 26th July, 1965, he said that corporation tax
…has had the effect of frightening foreign businesses, particularly American business which have been so successful in Scotland in the past, from settling in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 148.]
They have more than doubled their investment. No wonder we are quite sickened by the attitude of the party opposite.
But I am not yet finished. Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite read these newspapers:
Break through in the Highlands…much improved communications…
The hon. Gentleman spoke to us about the road to the south. Does he realise that his Government said that it was to be finished in 1955? After all, it was started in the year 1938. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are up to target. He should go to see what we have been able to do on the Glasgow-Edinburgh run that was such a disgrace under the administration of the party opposite. It was not until 1960 that expenditure in Scotland on trunk and major road improvements and developments exceeded £10 million. Today it is over £30 million. One can see in Scotland the great roads linking the cities.
The hon. Gentleman said that I was cutting the tapes on projects planned by him. They may have been planned, but did they pay for them? In the last months of the administration of the party opposite decisions in principle fell from Whitehall and St. Andrew's House like autumn leaves, but decisions in principle do not cost anything. They said that they had arranged for the Post Office to go to


Glasgow. They took the decision, but they did not arrange it. They had taken a ballot in the Post Office and the Post Office said they did not want to go. The first thing that our Postmaster-General did was to hold a great meeting in the Albert Hall of the Post Office workers to persuade them.
It was this Government and Peter Meldrurn, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, who had to speak to them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did the easy part. It is rather like a somebody saying "I will climb Everest", but leaving the actual climbing to somebody else. There is no great credit due to the party opposite in that particular matter.

Mr. Cordon Campbell: Mr. Cordon Campbell rose—

Mr. Ross: No, I am sorry. I want to deal with one or two more points put by the party opposite. The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) wanted to know if we were to undertake job planning and forecasting. This is being done by studies in depth in the hon. Lady's part of the world in the West of Scotland. The recent decision to embark on three new large industrial sites in that area is based on this analysis. The other instances are the surveys which have taken place in other parts of Scotland.
The hon. Lady spoke about the possible difficulty of placing people in employment after they have been trained. What a miserable story that is of the previous Government's performance in relation to training. Since January, 1964, 7,200 trainees have come out of Government training centres, and of these 92 per cent. have been placed in jobs using their skill. It is easy to make the kind of slur on the trade unions that they will not work with people who have been trained, but the facts are entirely opposite.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) about the troubles of Inverurie, but he will appreciate that when this problem first arose he came to see me and I gave him all the information available to me. I do not know who it was, but someone leaked, and, in a situation such as this,

the first people entitled to know the facts are the trade unions who have to negotiate certain procedures with the employers. All the rumours and the backing of this or that horse as the best runner did not help at all in that situation.

The hon. Member should know that in October Aberdeenshire County Council decided to purchase the workshop and to develop the site as an industrial estate. He was reasonably satisfied at the time that this was the right thing to do. We mounted a special exercise in publicity over Inverurie. The county council will be helped to meet the £60,000 purchase price by up to £15,000 from the Development Fund. We have an advance factory being built. Cruickshanks and Partners, electrical engineers of Kirkintilloch, agreed to purchase a large part of the workshops for the manufacture of switch-gear. Although the amount of employment is not as satisfactory as we would like it to be, this is a start.

The hon. Member for Ayr suggested that what we have listed in our Amendment is quite wrong and that there has been inaccuracy in the White Paper about achievements in infrastructure. We would never have required to do anything about infrastructure if what the previous Secretary of State said had been the fact. He announced from his Argyllshire house on 29th October, 1962, to the Daily Express that
Everything is ready for a massive step forward. The country is now equipped to surge ahead industrially. What the planners call infra-structure is ready.
If that were so I wonder why we have been spending so much on houses, roads, technical colleges and schools. There has been a great advance in all these things, and we shall carry on with it.

We are getting the results, and I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends and anyone who thinks rightly about what is going on in Scotland will treat this Motion with the contempt it deserves and will support our Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 228.

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Albu, Austen
Armstrong, Ernest
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ashley, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Alldritt, Walter
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Barnes, Michael




Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William


Baxter, William
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamling, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert


Binns, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Neal, Harold


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hazell, Bert
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Norwood, Christopher


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Boston, Terence
Henig, Stanley
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James
Hilton, W. S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Hobden, Dennis
O'Malley, Brian


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Oram, Albert E.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Horner, John
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howie, W.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Padley, Walter


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Park, Trevor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Latham, Arthur
Randall, Harry


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, John (Reading)
Richard, Ivor


Delargy, H. J.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Edmund
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dickens, James
Luard, Evan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dobson, Ray
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roebuck, Roy


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, John
Rowlands, E.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacColl, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacDermot, Niall
Sheldon, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Macdonald, A. H.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, John
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptord)


Ennals, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Julius


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Slater, Joseph


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Snow, Julian


Finch, Harold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverne, Dick


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Manuel, Archie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fowler, Gerry
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tuck, Raphael


Gardner, Tony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Maxwell, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David (Consett)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Weitzman, David


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wellbeloved, James







Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert


Whitaker, Ben
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Wyatt, Woodrow


White, Mrs. Eirene
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)



Whitlock, William
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilkins, W. A.
Winnick, David
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Montgomery, Fergus


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Barber, Ft. Hn. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Nott, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pardoe, John


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Hay, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heseltine, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


BUchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Scott, Nicholas


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Silvester, Frederick


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. p.
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Crouch, David
Lambton, Viscount
Stodart, Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Eden, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Waddington, David


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fortescue, Tim
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Weatherill, Bernard


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fry, Peter
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wiggin, A. W.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.







Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Woodnutt, Mark
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Jasper More.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 237.

Division No. 34.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Albu, Austen
Finch, Harold
McBride, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, James


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Macdonald, A. H.


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McElhone, Frank


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnett, Joel
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Baxter, William
Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Beaney, Alan
Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bence, Cyril
Ginsburg, David



Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Golding, John
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Binns, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bishop, E. S.
Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Manuel, Archie


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mapp, Charles


Boston, Terence
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marks, Kenneth


Boyden, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hannan, William
Maxwell, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, John


Buchan, Norman
Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Henig, Stanley
Molloy, William


Cant, R. B.
Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Hobden, Dennis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Horner, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Murray, Albert


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howie, W.
Neal, Harold


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Newens, Stan


Cronin, John
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)




Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Padley, Walter


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, Arthur


Dickens, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Park, Trevor


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Driberg, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, John (Reading)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'lh &amp; C'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Pentland, Norman


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Ensor, David
Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Probert, Arthur


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Randall, Harry




Rankin, John
Slater, Joseph
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Rees, Merlyn
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Richard, Ivor
Snow, Julian
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Whitaker, Ben


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitlock, William


Robinson, Rt. Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Swain, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roebuck, Roy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Ceorge
Williams, Alan (Swansea,W.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rose, Paul
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tinn, James
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rowlands, E.
Tomney, Frank
Winnick, David


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Tuck, Raphael
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Sheldon, Robert
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Varley, Eric G.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Short, Mr>. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Silkin, Rt Hn. John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Julius
Wallace, George
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Drayson, G. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jopling, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Eden, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Errington, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Kimball, Marcus


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Lambton, Viscount


Barber, Ft. Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Lane, David


Batsford, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fortescue, Tim
Lawler, Wallace


Belt, Ronald
Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)



Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bessell, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbert


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lubbock, Eric


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Glyn, Sir Richard
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Black, Sir Cyril
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
MacArthur, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Body, Riehard
Cower, Raymond
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
McMaster, Stanley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brewis, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Buchanar-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harrison, Brian (Maklon)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Burden, F. A.
Harvie Anderson, Mies
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)




Carlisle, Mark
Hay, John
Monro, Hector


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, H. P. G.
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper


Chataway, Christopher
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clegg, Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cooke, Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cordle, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Murton, Oscar


Corfield, F. v.
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Costain, A. P.
Hooson, Emlyn
Neave, Airey


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crouch, David
Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dance, James
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Dean, Paul
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstend)
Pardoe, John







Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Waddington, David


Percival, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Silvester, Frederick
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Pounder, Rafton
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walters, Dennis


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Prior, J. M. L.
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pym, Francis
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William




Wiggin, A. W.


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stodart, Anthony
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Woodnutt, Mark


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Ridsdale, Julian
Temple, John M.
Wylie, N. R.


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Younger, Hn. George


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tilney, John



Royle, Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Russell, Sir Ronald
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. R.W.Elliott and


Scott, Nicholas
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Anthony Grant.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on their achievements in the completion in the four years 1965 to 1968 of factories which in floor space were 25 per cent. greater than in the preceding four years, and 36 per cent. greater than in the preceding four years in terms of the jobs they were expected to provide, in reducing migration from Scotland to the lowest level for 10 years, and in narrowing the gap between Scotland and the United Kingdom in average weekly earnings of adult male workers in manufacturing to 2·4 per cent. compared with 7·3 per cent. in 1964.

ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Ross.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

ROADS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make certain amendments to the law relating to roads and streets in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session, and
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FOOTPATHS AND OPEN SPACES) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer on local authorities in Scotland power to take over the control and maintenance of certain footpaths, and to construct and maintain certain footpaths, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment relating to local government in Scotland.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1569 (S.I., 1969, No. 1532), dated 29th October., 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be annulled.
We are debating tonight one of the biggest bureaucratic nonsenses that have been put before this House for a long time. The Government are endeavouring to introduce regulations which will result in a considerable increase in bureaucracy and a considerable loss of freedom to small shopkeepers and businessmen without any real benefit to the public.
I think that both sides of the House will agree that it is important to keep reasonable control, from the point of view of amenity and safety, upon advertising in this country. At present, there is a law whereby planning permission has to be obtained for all large signs, illuminated signs and signs which are not attached to business premises. Therefore, there is already sufficient planning control to ensure that our amenities in towns and villages are not destroyed by a colossal collection of advertisements.
The Government now seek substantially to end these powers and to impose planning controls on various forms of advertising. In doing so they intend setting up what must be a very considerable bureaucratic machine. At present, we have a situation in which the control over advertising is supervised by local authorities who have powers to protect particular areas of high amenity value and to work in close collaboration with the business communities.
The remarkable thing about these regulations is that, so far as I can see, nobody apart from the Government has pressed for this type of legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] None of the local authority associations have pressed for this form of regulation and, so far as I know, the only body which has given any tentative support at all is the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. It has done so because one or two concessions were given to that body in discussions and, if I may say so,

it is almost the least representative body concerned with this form of regulations. Although it represents certain national advertisers, in fact it represents primarily those which are able to advertise in the major media of television and newspaper advertising. It is not concerned with the economics of advertising and it does not represent the High Street users of outdoor advertising.
Against these regulations we have a formidable list of opponents. We have the Advertising Association, the Electrical Sign Manufacturers Association, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary laughs. Perhaps he has more regard for nationalised organisations such as London Transport advertising, and British Transport advertising, both responsible bodies, I presume, in his view, as they are nationalised bodies.
We have the National Chamber of Trade, the National Union of Small Shopkeepers, the Retail Confectioners' Association, to mention but a few of the major bodies which are strongly opposed to the Government's proposal.
I will explain why they are opposed to this proposal. They consider that it is perfectly reasonable to have certain control. The present situation is that no shopkeeper is allowed to put up a large sign or an illuminated sign on his premises without the local authority concerned having power to challenge that sign and thereafter to listen to any case which the shopkeeper may have for its retention. The Government intend to change this and to move to a situation in which discontinuance notices may be issued.
The difference is that whereas a local authority may now issue a challenge to a sign and the shopkeeper may put his case to the local authority and, if the local authority finds against him, appeal to the Minister, in future he will have no power to go to the local authority and he will have to go direct to the Minister. We will have the absurdity that if the local authority objects, for example, to an illuminated sign saying, "Fish and Chips", instead of the proprietor of that fish and chip shop being able to argue his case to the local authority, that small shopkeeper in some remote part of England will have to go


to Whitehall to appeal to the Minister to be allowed to continue to display the sign.
When the Government introduce legislation such as this, I wonder how absurd they can become, but that is not the end of the effect of this proposal. At present, any shopkeeper is allowed to put inside his shop window any sign he wishes, provided that it is not illuminated. From now on, there will be deemed consent unless the local authority issues a discontinuance notice, which it may do provided that the sign is within a certain measurement of the shop window itself. If it does, the shopkeeper has to appeal to the Minister to be allowed to continue to display the sign.
There are absurdities in this situation, but there will be drastic effects for garage proprietors. The Government are continually bombarding the small garage proprietor with an unending series of pieces of legislation which have led to increased expense for the garage proprietors and much more bureaucracy. The Government have suddenly introduced legislation which says that no garage proprietor may have more than 4·5 square metres of advertising on his forecourt without obtaining planning permission from the local authority.
We all know that garage proprietors wish to advertise various services. Some offer credit facilities on production of various types of card provided by banking and other commercial concerns. Some offer various forms of stamps and bonuses. Some offer replacement and servicing facilities. But in future a garage proprietor will have to apply for planning permission to put up a sign to say that he is offering bonuses or services—unless he fixes the sign to the front of the building.
We shall have the ridiculous situation that a proprietor wishing to advertise that he accepts certain types of credit card will get round the necessity to apply for planning permission by fixing the advertisement to the main building itself, preferably the front of the building and not in the window, and he will not be allowed to put it on a flank wall.
How can it possibly assist road safety, which is one of the factors at which the

regulations are directed, if in future, instead of clearly seeing what facilities a garage offers, a motorist has to peer at the front wall of the building, as opposed to the forecourt, because to avoid having to make a planning application, the garage proprietor has decided that putting the advertisement there is the easiest way out?
These are but a few of the series of nonsenses contained in this legislation. What is worse is that the Government have taken no trouble at all to discover what effect this legislation will have. When they met representatives of those concerned with outdoor advertising, the Government were asked how many additional applications for express permission would result from the proposal. They said categorically that they had no idea, that they had carried out no research to see what additional work would result. The advertisers concerned offered to join with the Government in a joint working committee to examine the true implications of the legislation, but the Government refused to set up any such committee.
So, tonight, the Government are trying to foist on the country legislation which will result in a considerable increase in bureaucracy. If it does not do so it will result in considerable delay in businessmen obtaining permission to advertise their goods. The Government have no idea of the extent of this bureaucracy, they have done no research to measure it and have been unwilling to enter a joint working committee to discover what the results of the legislation will be. No one desires this legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—except one or two hon. Members opposite—and what greater condemnation of the legislation could we have than that?

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Ministry has received representations from the amenity movement about these regulations and that the proposal is welcomed by those who have any visual sensibility?

Mr. Walker: We have consulted a number of organisations which I suppose could be broadly described as being interested in the amenity movement. They have not in any way pressed for


this legislation. Already we have an organisation in being, with the consent of the Government in the past, to see that cases of bad advertising are quickly dealt with. Indeed, 350,000 such cases have been dealt with under the voluntary code set by the advertisers. Under legislation there are considerable powers resting with the local authority. Someone with a display of soap powder in his window could come under this legislation, if the soap packet was of a certain size, and receive a discontinuance order from the Government. Then he could not put a similar display in his window without express permission.
We also have the absurdity that in future there can be no advertising on the flank walls of a business, unless it is in a window. If someone wishes to advertise on a side wall he has to chip out the tricks and put in a window. Then the local authority can do nothing, provided that the advertisement is of a certain size.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: The owner would have to get planning permission for the window first.

Mr. Walker: But in obtaining that planning permission he will not have to state expressly what use the window will be put to.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is typical of the whole attitude of hon. Members opposite to this sort of thing. They delight that a businessman has to obtain planning permission for a window in his premises to display some of his goods. This legislation will create more bureaucracy and will mean a loss of freedom for many small businessmen. It will have no great effect on the large advertisers, because they will still be able to afford to advertise in the national newspapers and on television. For the small businessman, however, for the garage proprietor and the shopkeeper, this is a piece of bureaucratic nonsense which the House should reject.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: As soon as I saw that it was the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) who was to move the Prayer, I realised that we were in for a bit of knockabout and not-too-serious argument. When

there is serious argument on a matter like this, it is left to his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to display a little more accuracy than his hon. Friend showed and to treat the House to rather more serious arguments. The hon. Member for Worcester thought that it was enough to litter his speech with insults about bureaucracy to think that he had presented an argument.
We know that hon. Members opposite appear from time to time in quite different guises. Sometimes they want to get away from centralisation and see more freedom for local authorities to settle their own affairs and determine them in their own way without control from Whitehall. This, of course, is not one of those occasions, because this is one of the occasions when the guns of the big battalions that support the party opposite have been firing, and this is an occasion when they want central control of what the local authorities do with regard to the control of advertising.
I congratulate the Opposition on the fact that this is, I think, the third edition of the regulations and it is the first edition to be debated. There was no debate in 1948 and there was no debate in 1960. Of course, all this bureaucratic machine which the hon. Member for Worcester was inveighing against was set up in 1948 and was perpetuated, renewed and given new vigour by the party opposite when it was in power in 1960.
The issue is not the simple one that the hon. Member tried to make out. As in most of the complicated problems in politics, we are dealing not with a nice, clear-cut issue between good and evil, but with the area where two different, conflicting and perfectly legitimate interests overlap and come into conflict. The conflict here is between the legitimate interests of advertisers and the legitimate interests of those whose task it is to preserve our amenities and road safety. The question is how to strike the right balance.
I do not regard myself as one of those who is anti-advertiser. Advertisements have an important rôle to play in our economy, and, looking at the matter purely from an amenity viewpoint, I can think of areas where advertisements positively are advantageous. In some of our drearier industrial towns, I can think of urban vistas that could be improved by


well-sited advertisements. It is not, therefore, simply a matter even of advertisement against amenity.
I think that a great deal more flexibility is required in the application of advertisement control than is shown by all local authorities. I was surprised when I had responsibility in these matters in the Ministry, to find how some local authorities seemed to have what appeared to me to be an unreasoning prejudice, for example, against the kind of overhanging sign which is hung outside shops in some streets. These are streets where signs of that kind would be quite out of character and unsuitable, but there are other shopping streets—I think of Beaucham Place, for example, off Brompton Road—where I would have thought that the whole charm and character of the shopping street was given precisely by signs of this kind. I make those introductory remarks only to try to persuade the House that I am not violently prejudiced one way or the other and am seeking to find the right balance.
What we are concerned with here alone is the changes that are proposed in the regulations compared with what we had before, and I wish to refer to a few of them. First, I congratulate the Government on their proposal for replacing the former challenge procedure by the new procedure by which there will be a direct right of appeal to the Minister to the discontinuance order. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester has sat on that Bench in his present capacity a little longer he will be a little more familiar with what goes on up and down the country in this sphere, and will be aware that there have been outrageous abuses of advertisement control because of the old challenge procedure.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that many local authorities feel extremely strongly about this. I remember that I certainly found it to be so when I toured the country when I was a Minister. I had a case quoted to me from Cornwall, an attractive area where, during the holiday season, the whole advertisement control was quite obviously flouted because of the delays involved in making application, in discussing it with the local authority, and then in

appealing to the Minister and thus ensuring that no effective action could be taken to prevent the abuse until the holiday season was past. We clearly need a very speedy procedure and these regulations will provide for it.
Secondly, I congratulate the Government on proposing to extend advertisement control to windows and to displays within windows. Here again, I urge that—and hope there will be—a little common sense be displayed in its application. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester travels round the country, as I hope he will, I am sure he will see places where there are most attractive shopping areas where chambers of commerce, as often happens, have been co-operating, getting the advice of a local architect, and have been collaborating in getting really attractive schemes of fascia boards, of signs, of external decoration of their shops, and then a vulgar, brash supermarket makes a display which utterly destroys the effect which so many people have been painstakingly building up and which undoubtedly has added enormously to the tourist attraction of the area.
But, as I say, it needs applying with discretion. There is a place for that kind of brash display, but what is suitable in one place—say, in Petticoat Lane—will not be suitable in, say, an attractive Suffolk village, or, perhaps, in Pont Street.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that the Government should decide what one can put in any window of any kind of shop anywhere in the country. His argument is, surely, absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. MacDermot: Personally, I do not want the Government to decide at all. I want the local authority to decide, the authority which has to answer to the local electorate.
When I was in the Ministry I stirred up what proved to be a hornets' nest by suggesting that we should consider whether we should perpetuate advertisement appeals at all, because it did not seem to me that the man in Whitehall necessarily knew any better at all about this, and that it was much more desirable that this should be decided at local level. I need hardly say that that proposal met with the utmost opposition.
As I said, I was in favour of greater control by local authorities.
The next alteration I would advert to is that there should now be properly defined what is the position in relation to advertising on forecourts. I do not myself regard this as a change. I do not think that there ever has been the right to display advertisements on forecourts. It is a matter on which there has been no ruling in the divisional court, and there have been conflicting decisions at quarter sessions. I believe that always they have been subject to control. These regulations define the position clearly, and also they give deemed permission to a very substantial area of advertising which the hon. Gentleman seemed to brush aside. The permission will be for a total of 48 sq. ft. for advertising. That is to say, as forecourts are frequently on corner sites, there will be 48 sq. ft. for advertising given deemed permission on the faces—the sides—of the forecourt.
The regulations propose to maintain the position that there shall not be any power in the planning authority to control the design of advertisements. I think that this is right. One can see by travelling round the country what can be done to improve the attraction and amenity oil' shopping areas simply by the coordination of good design and lettering. Some of our public houses and brewers have set an excellent example and, once the habit starts among a few shopkeepers of good design, good lettering and good display it tends to be copied by others and adds enormously to the attractions of those areas for shoppers and tourists.
The picture painted by the hon. Gentleman is an utterly false one. I have received only one letter from a constituent about these regulations, and that was from a shopkeeper who had been misled by the propaganda he had received from his organisation—I do not know which one—into thinking that suddenly, and for the first time, the Government proposed to impose an utterly new control of advertisements which had never existed before.

10.51 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Of course, the architect of the land betterment levy is hardly a person

to rebut charges of bureaucratic bumbledom. That is the charge I level against the Government—bureaucratic bumbledom, a desire to encourage meddlesome tactics at every level of central and local government to try to control every shopkeeper's sign both outside and inside his premises. All retail trade in this country is gravely concerned about the implications of the regulations.
The hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) received only one complaint from a constituent. Derby is hardly an area of high amenity value.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir G. Nabarro: No, I will not.

Mr. Lyon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir G. Nabarro: No, I will not.

Mr. Lyon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir G. Nabarro: No, I will not.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: On a point of order. I really must ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to insult Derby in this way. As a former resident of the great county and city of Derby, I deeply resent the aspersions made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman is responsible for what he says to the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: I repeat, Derby is hardly an area of high amenity value, but Malvern, Worcestershire, is an area of high amenity value.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What about York?

Sir G. Nabarro: The Malvern Chamber of Commerce immediately communicated with its Member of Parliament to register the most grave dissent from the provisions of the regulations, and it would be instructive for the House to consider its views.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What about York?

Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government considers that the Malvern Chamber of Commerce is a derisory body and laughs at my reference to it. The Malvern Chamber of Commerce wrote to his Ministry on 25th October:
My Council has been informed of new regulations which are proposed by the Government. While appreciating that some form of restrictions is desirable…
I concur with that utterly; I do not want Malvern to be "Italianised"—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Racial discrimination.

Sir G. Nabarro: No, it is not racialism.
The letter goes on:
The Malvern Chamber of Commerce must strongly protest against severity of the new proposals. These would appear to have been drawn up on theoretical lines and are merely tightening the screw which is already seriously hurting some businesses. Surely the area covered by a business premises and the size of it forecourt should have a bearing on the amount of advertising space allowed. Similarly, the area of front and/or side walls should be taken into account.'
That was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker)—
Whether a side wall has a window in it is irrelevant. One could have a pleasing advertisement on a wall without a window and an objectionable one on a wall without. The ability to display a 'Let' or 'Sold' notice is one of the estate agents most valuable advertisements and to take this right away is equivalent to a new additional tax. The suggested procedure of forms of application and plans is not only an additional burden and expense to the applicant and also to the local authority. As a local councillor, I can vouch for the fact that the latter's staff are already fully occupied.
The writer goes on to quote an admirable case of amenity and advertisement which I commend to the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North:
The proposal to grant powers to order immediate removal of advertisements is obnoxious and could be most unjust when applied. Very recently there has been a case of this nature locally. For over 30 years there have been what most people consider most inoffensive signs at the Kettle Sings Cafe adjoining Jubilee Drive on the Malvern Hills".
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) knows the Kettle Sings Cafe well. It is unlicensed premises—

The proprietor purchased this cafe not long ago and suddenly found his signs removed. This cafe is not visible from the roadway, so not only is his livelihood seriously jeopardised, but a grave disservice has been done to thousands of visitors"—

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the hon. Member is talking, about is in the past tense and, therefore, cannot be affected by these regulations. He is talking about something which happened before they were brought in and, therefore, it cannot be relevant. Will you please rule him out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I have not yet decided that he is out of order, but I was hoping that he will come to an early conclusion.

Sir G. Nabarro: This complaint arises as a result of the regulations—[An HON. MEMBER: "Put the kettle on."] I am not going to put the kettle on.
The letter goes on:
Such is the result of bureaucracy. Before introducing fresh legislation may I earnestly beg you to consult and to be advised by those who have practical knowledge of the subject, such as the National Chamber of Trade".
I need not quote further from that document because the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has sent a non-committal answer—it was sent from another place by the Parliamentary Secretary—saying that the representations would be taken into account.
The representative body in this connection is the Outdoor Advertising Council and its principal objection to these regulations, which have been circularised widely, leads me to support my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, for it is couched in these terms:
Attack on freedom. The main objection to the new regulations is that they will be a further erosion on the freedom of shopkeepers, business concerns, etc., to carry on their business in the way they see fit. They will be a further attack on private enterprise.
It continues:
More staff, more on the rates. Planning authorities will have to employ many more staff to deal with these extra applications—an extra burden on local rates. Alternatively, if they cannot find the extra staff, decisions will be delayed for many months and hardship will be caused to shopkeepers, etc.".
This proposal is, therefore, an extravagant and unnecessary piece of Socialism.

Mr, Alexander W. Lyon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations controlling advertisements within shop windows were first proposed in the York Corporation Bill, which was sponsored by a Conservative-controlled council?

Sir G. Nabarro: Regulations concerning the control of advertisements were first proposed more than 20 years ago, in 1947, when the principal Statute was passed. I will not now make an historical survey of this type of legislation.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why Not?

Sir G. Nabarro: Because fundamentally I approve of reasonable control in this sphere—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"—to prevent an "Italianised" situation from developing whereby the countryside is ruined by external advertisements, with large bill hoardings on the roadside every few yards. However, I object to minute controls of small advertisements on every sort of building, since these are an essential feature of day-to-day commercial activity.
These regulations are an integral and intrinsic part of Socialist bureaucracy. For this reason I am sure that the whole of my party, supported by the Liberal Party, will gallop through the Lobby in opposition to what can only be described as a dreadful proposal.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are wrong to suggest that the amendments to these regulations are somehow spawned from the doctrine of Socialism.
One of the major changes in the regulations—the control of advertisements within buildings to ensure that they are a certain distance from shop windows—was first put forward in the York Corporation Bill, which came before Parliament about 18 months ago and which was sponsored by a Conservative-controlled council. It was put forward because of what it meant in terms of an area of high amenity; and I hope that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who represents a little-known cathedral town in the South, will not suggest that York is not an area of high amenity.
Many of the streets of York were ruined because, in the midst of an area

of medieval buildings to which highly desirable additions had been made by careful shop owners and by careful planning by the local authority, a supermarket put across the whole of its window space advertisements about how much it was knocking off the price of soap powders, or how many pairs of stockings it was giving away with each pound of its butter.
Despite all the control that was possible under the Town and Country Planning Act, and the Civic Amenities Act, which was also originally sponsored by an hon. Member from the benches opposite, the local authority was powerless to stop that blow to the amenities of York. It therefore put forward its proposals, and I remember the deputy town clerk of York, who prepared the Bill, saying that he could not find any kind of precedent on which to work. His suggestions came before the House, but the relevant Clauses were removed from the Bill by the Committee which considered it because the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave an assurance that it was considering the matter and that it would put forward its considered views in new regulations.
I therefore welcome particularly these provisions in the regulations, but I welcome the others, too, because they will be of profound significance in making the centre of York into the kind of jewel that it deserves to be, instead of being ruined by commercial exploitation.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I cannot help asking myself why the Government have brought these regulations before the House now. We are all agreed that a certain amount of control is necessary, not only to ensure safety on the roads, but to safeguard amenities to a certain extent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said, we do not want an "Italianised" situation.
What are the Government trying to do? I agree with what has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the Government are trying to impose control to the nth degree through the local councils, and this I find intolerable. As I said when I interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), if we follow this line to the


logical end we shall end up with the Government, or the local council, but the Government essentially, trying to decide how far, and where, one goes, and what can be put in any windows and what cannot be.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that an effort was made to ensure that the matter was decided locally and not nationally, but that the advertising interests pressed hard for an appeal to the central Government?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is not what the argument is about. The point is that freedom is being attacked to an extent that I am not prepared to tolerate.
These regulations are extremely long and complex. Apart from the general principle which I question, there are one or two powers which I should like to question. Class III of Regulation 14 relates to the agricultural sector. It lays down a size of 1·2 square metres and the kind of advertising which can be done in respect of farm sales. Have the Minister and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary any idea of what they are talking about? I do not believe that they have. In a large rural community it is essential that people all over the district should know where the sale is taking place, and this happens under the existing regulations, but should not. The Minister must apply his mind to that point.
Class VI deals with advertisements on the forecourts of business premises. In my constituency there are firms which have won the Queen's Awards for Exports, and they have been able to fly the export flag on their premises. Unless I have totally misread the wording, those firms will no longer be able to do so. It is quite ridiculous, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman cannot mean the regulations to have this effect.
I turn to the wretched business of shop window advertising. There is no definition of a shop window. Can the Minister give us a definition? This is a matter of crucial important. We do not know what is meant, nor does the advertiser or the owner of the premises. My hon. Friend the Member for

Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) or my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) may talk of bashing a hole in the wall, but what is to be put in the window? The person may sell only one article. Is that classified? We do not know.
What is the definition of a first floor? How far from the ground must it be? One can easily construct a first floor that is five inches or five feet or 35 feet from the ground—are they all to be considered to be first floors? Something should be laid down in the regulations.
Again, Regulation 14 affects hotel and public house signs. Such signs are to be restricted; they must not exceed 1·2 square metres. Are we being told that Government and local authority inspectors will measure signs hanging outside the pubs? I do not believe it. It is so bureaucratic as to be sheer nonsense. The Government will have to think again. Of course, we do not want to have enormous signs, nor do the publicans themselves, but, as I say, this is just sheer, bureaucratic nonsense.
I profoundly disagree with my neighbour the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who says that these regulations are just what are wanted, and that he has had no representations from constituents. I do not live far from him, and my constituency is not far from his, but I can tell him that I have had quite a lot of representations from my constituents—from garage proprietors and pub keepers, farmers and others—against the imposition of these regulations. They all ask why the Government are taking away their freedom and restricting them yet again. They are asking why the Government have laid down such narrow definitions.
The Peak District National Park is an area of great natural beauty, and must be preserved, but, at the same time, we must preserve a certain amount of individual liberty and freedom to behave as we wish within the laws of our society. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to challenge that assertion.
I cannot understand why the Government should bring forward such regulations as these, which will do little or nothing to further the main issue, and will impose a great burden in many cases. The regulations are ridiculous and stupid.

11.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): It might be convenient if I try to answer some of the points raised in the debate and to put the regulations, and their impact, into rather more rational perspective than they have sometimes been during the debate.
I have enjoyed the debate, but I have not always been enthralled to that degree which from time to time I am and which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter 'Walker) thinks I should be. The impression was given of bureaucracy malevolently working in Whitehall to produce a complex scheme to baffle the public and hamstring traders, but I must put on record straight away that this is far from being the picture. The pressure for change has come from almost everywhere but the Government.
We have taken a lead in certain matters, but over a long period we have been asked to review the 1960 regulations because despite the good will and the attempt at co-operation by the advertising interests, to which I pay tribute, defects in the 1960 regulations have come to light, some examples of which have been given by my hon. Friends.
In case I do not have time to deal with all the points, I will first answer the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) on the point he made about agricultural sales notices. This is taken directly from the 1960 regulations and all that the new form does is slightly to increase the size as the original figure is converted into metrics.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is not true. They also restrict the amount. That was not restricted in the 1960 regulations.

Mr. Skeffington: This now allows something like 12 sq. ft. and in all these cases, an authority in applying a discontinuance notice or taking any other action is most carefully bound by the precise wording of Regulation 16 in relation to the fact that it has to make its proposals in the light of safety or amenity considerations. That is carefully defined and will be open to challenge, not merely on appeal, but outside in the courts, if the authority has departed from that principle. So I do

not think that his point amount to much when analysed.
My I start to put matter into persepective—

Mr. Lubbock: Class III will be of some importance in the coming year. In Class III (d) the Minister will see advertisements announcing any event of a political character are included. Can he say how many inspectors will be going round during the next election examining advertisements of meetings for candidates and seeing whether they extend to more than 0·6 square metre?

Mr. Skeffington: I am surprised at the hon. Member's question, because he knows the way in which these restrictions have been interpreted by local authorities and it is only in a case where there is a serious threat to amenity or to safety that the regulations are invoked.
There is no suggestion by local authority associations or by the public or in any representations we have had that, taken as a whole, the powers have been abused. The answer to the hon. Member is that one has to depend, as in so much in this House, on the commonsense and wisdom of local government. If we did not accept this assumption a great deal of what we do would be impossible.
On this side, we have great confidence in them. It is important also to put the time factor into perspective. Far from there being any mad rush, the matter arising in the regulations came up about 11 years ago. The then Minister, Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, took the view that one should see how far a voluntary code which had been offered by the industry would work. It was clear two or three years ago that, although great improvements had been made, there were particular fields in which there were difficulties.
One of these was that development of advertisement clutter, sometimes by large numbers of signs in the forecourts of business premises, which were possibly illegal, although this matter has never been tested in the courts. In the one case which did get to the High Court, it was ruled that forecourts were probably not part of the premises and signs were probably not protected. There was a good deal of complaint about this aspect, particularly in relation to garages in the countryside.
There was an increasing awareness of the difficulties in relation to advertisements inside shops. Again, no one is suggesting in these regulations that, overnight, there will be a change or that every trader will have to apply. In fact, the advertiser now advertising, in every case, has to take no action whatsoever under these regulations, but in certain cases, the local authority may enter into negotiations with him, and may, if these are unsuccessful, serve a discontinuance notice.
At any rate, these defects made themselves known, and far from there being no desire for a change, as the hon. Member for Worcester said, there were very strong recommendations, first from the county planning officers, then from the County Councils Association, in a letter sent in November, 1966. No fewer than 42 county councils, including Worcestershire and Lancashire, were also among those who wanted a power to deal with clutter. Most of them also wanted an alternative to the present challenge policy.
This is a sizeable body of opinion, and the impetus has come not from the Government but from the local authorities. The Urban District Councils Association, in 1965, asked the Minister to take steps for the preservation of amenities by limiting the extent of use of shop windows for advertising matter. Indeed, this was followed by various interests, including the Conservative hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), who asked what the Minister would do about this increasing use, and by a large number of other bodies, like the R.I.C.S., the Civic Trust and the C.P.R.E., whom one would expect to be in the forefront, and who particularly believe that the clutter in shop windows is one of the most serious facets of advertising. And there were other bodies.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would the hon. Gentleman take it from some of us on this side that we are not entirely happy with the state of advertisement clutter, but that it is this piece of bureaucratic nonsense which will force us into the Lobby against it tonight?

Mr. Skeffington: If the hon. Gentleman gives me a few more minutes, he will see that it is not bureaucratic nonsense, and that what is proposed is, on

the whole reasonable, and has been discussed with all interests, a large number of whom we have consulted, including one advertising body which the hon. Member for Worcester himself mentioned, although he rather discredited its status—perhaps because it supported us. We have had a large number of consultations, not only with the local authorities but with trade bodies. We have had a larger number of consultations with professional bodies and, indeed, with the Law Society, which, I am sure the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will confirm, has found no objections.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member realises that the Law Society is not allowed to advertise.

Mr. Skeffington: That has not prevented it from intervening in our debates on this and other subjects in the past. A large number of professional bodies have expressed themselves reasonably satisfied with the regulations as they have emerged, including the Confederation of British Industry, which, at one time, thought that the figure for advertisements on forecourts was too small, but which, when it was stated that 4·5 square metres was more than the equivalent of 48 square feet, made no further comment.

Mr. Wallace Lawler: Mr. Wallace Lawler (Birmingham, Ladywood) rose—

Mr. Skeffington: I will not give way again. It is unfair to other hon. Members.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. I have to put this point of order before 11.30 p.m. Having regard to the number of potential speakers who rose, before the Parliamentary Secretary spoke, to address the House—there were four on this side of the House and three on the other side—and having regard to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary obviously will not be able to deal with the subject adequately in the next four minutes, may I, at this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, invite you to exercise your discretion to adjourn the debate at 11.30 p.m. so that it may be finished on another night? Obviously, it cannot be finished tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will have to consider these matters at 11.30 p.m.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. When considering the matter, Mr. Deputy


Speaker, would you bear in mind that because of the abnormal time taken by Divisions after 10 p.m., this debate did not start until 10.26 p.m. thereby depriving intending speakers of about 20 minutes of debating time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has already spoken. I hope that he will let the Minister reply.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not see why you need to wait until 11.30 p.m.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that these considerations must wait until 11.30 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. May I finish my sentence? I do not wish to question your Ruling in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out that only two hon. Members have spoken from this side of the House and that four hon. Members rose to speak on the last occasion, as well as three hon. Members opposite. When the Parliamentary Secretary has finished it will be 11.30 p.m. and our proceedings will come to an end.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has added nothing to the submissions made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I hope that he will not waste more time.

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps I have given way too often.
There is nothing in the regulations which prejudices any advertisement or advertiser. In the case of clutter and of some categories which are mentioned, the authority can serve a discontinuance notice. It has power under Regulation 16(5) to withdraw that, and, meanwhile, negotiations can go on, and not to reimpose it if it so wishes. But even if it does reimpose the notice the matter can still be taken to appeal. There will be opportunities, moreover, for public authorities who want these powers to protect both safety and the amenity of our countryside.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I repeat the request that the debate should be adjourned. If you—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am required to deal with this matter at 11.30.

The Question is—

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am required to decide whether to put the Question or to adjourn the debate. My decision is that I must put the Question.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (Procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 151 Noes 203.

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Grieve, Percy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Costain, A. p.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Crowder, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, W, H. K. (Banff)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hay, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dance, James
Heseltine, Michael


Biffen, John
Dean, Paul
Hiley, Joseph


Biggs-Davison, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, J. E. B.


Blaker, Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eden, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Body, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hooson, Emlyn


Bossom, Sir Clive
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hordern, Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Errington, Sir Erie
Howell, David (Guildford)


Beyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Bruce-Gurdyne, J.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)



Fortescue, Tim
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Foster, Sir John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Fraser,Rt.Hn,Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jopling, Michael


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fry, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Gibson-Watt, David
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Carr, Rt, Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Chataway, Christopher
Gower, Raymond
Kitson, Timothy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony
Lane, David


Cooke, Robert
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John




Lawler, Wallace
Pardoe, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Longden, Gilbert
Percival, Ian
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Lubbock, Eric
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Temple, John M.


MacArthur, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Pounder, Rafton
Tilney, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Maddan, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mawby, Ray
Prior, J. M. L.
Waddington, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Pym, Francis
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Ward, Dame Irene


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Monro, Hector
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, A. W.


More, Jasper
Royle, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Murton, Oscar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Worsley, Marcus


Neave, Airey
Silvester, Frederick
Younger, Hn. George


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)



Nott, John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Page, Graham (Crosby)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ennals, David
McElhone, Frank


Alidritt, Walter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
Mackie, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barnett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
MacPherson, Malcolm


Baxter, William
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bence, Cyril
Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu,J.P.w.(Huddcrsfield,E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E.
Manuel, Archie


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marquand, David


Binns, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy



Gregory, Arnold



Bishop, E. S.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maxwell, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William
Mendelson, John


Boston, Terence
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hazell, Bert
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hobden, Dennis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carmichael, Neil
Horner, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert


Conlan, Bernard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Neal, Harold


Crawshaw, Richard
Howie, W.
Newens, Stan


Cronin, John
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Norwood, Christopher


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Dalyell, Tom
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hynd, John
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur


Delargy, H. J.
Latham, Arthur
Park, Trevor


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Rees, Merlyn


Eadie, Alex
MacDermot, Niall
Richard, Ivor







Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Taverns, Dick
Whitaker, Ben


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James
Willer, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roebuck, Roy
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Varlsy, Eric G.
Winnick, David


Rowlands, E.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Sheldon, Robert
Wallace, George



Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman, Julius
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Mr. William Hamling and


Skeffington, Arthur
Weitzman, David
Mr. Neil McBride.


Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James

CHRISTMAS EXPENDITURE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobsmil]

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: May I be the first in the House of Commons this year to wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a very happy Christmas? But I fear that in view of the Government's actions it will be a very expensive one.
The heading under which I wish to address the House in this debate is one which affects the family and Christmas time in particular, the effects upon the family at Christmas of recent measures by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Christmas, traditionally, is both a family occasion and a time of good cheer. It is, of course, a religious festival and this is sometimes forgotten, but the whole of the Christian world can properly make merry to celebrate the anniversary of Christ's birth. It is a matter of fact and regret that this Christmas, for most families, will be the most expensive in our history. It is my contention that the reasons for this can be laid firmly at the door of the Government in general and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, for the right hon. Gentleman will be the spectre behind every feast in the land on 25th December, Christmas Day.
Christmas, as I have said, is a family occasion. Already, many culinary preparations will have been made. I am told on excellent authority that Christmas puddings and cakes by now should have been made and should be quietly maturing in the larder. The ingredients for these come from many lands, as we well know—currants, sultanas, peel, glace cherries, rum or brandy, all of which have risen in price since devaluation and many of which

must have been affected by the import deposit surcharge.
Coining a little nearer the day, "Mum" and "Dad" will be doing a lot of motoring to buy the presents, to pick up the turkey, to collect the guests from the station and all the hundred and one journeys which Christmas involves. They will be paying the Chancellor 1s. 9d. per gallon of petrol extra duty compared with a Conservative Christmas in 1963, and that is getting on for an extra ld. a mile for a family car.
What about the day itself? Christmas is a time for families and it is certainly a time for the children. As all parents know, the cost of toys has gone up and up largely due to increases in purchase tax by the Chancellor, who bears no resemblance whatever to a benevolent Santa Claus.
The last Conservative Christmas saw sweets carrying 15 per cent. purchase tax; this Socialist Christmas the rate will be 22 per cent. Toys used to be taxed at 25 per cent.; now it is 36 per cent. Luxury items, so called, such as make-up and cosmetics—and every woman likes to look even more beautiful at Christmas—now bear the punitive purchase tax burden of 55 per cent., compared with 25 per cent. under the "wicked Tories". If women looked more glamorous under a Conservative Government, here perhaps is one reason—that under a Labour Government they can hardly afford to.
At Christmas, we probably all drink and smoke more than is strictly good for us. As the old saying goes:
Christmas comes but once a year, and when it comes it brings good cheer.
Under a Labour Government it also brings financial headaches. The duty on gin, whisky and other spirits has gone up by 14s. a bottle in the last five years. That is 40 per cent. on the price of 1964. Port and sherry are up by 4s. 1½d. a


bottle, 78 per cent. up on 1964. Still worse, table wines, of which the Chancellor is supposed to be particularly fond, are up by 2s. 10d. a bottle, 108 per cent. I have brought into the Chamber a bottle of wine, a bottle of port and a cake to represent the subjects about which I am talking.
These fantastic increases in duty suggest to me that the Chancellor is determined to destroy the golden eggs that flow into the Treasury from the wine and spirit trade. The French say:
"Un repas sans vin est tine journee sans soled"
—and a meal without wine is a day without sun. All I can say is that the sunshine will be a bit expensive at this year's Christmas dinner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, but I cannot yet see to what administrative aspect of the Minister's responsibilities he is directing his remarks. He cannot ask for legislation on the Adjournment. Perhaps he can help me.

Mr. Cordle: I have already, I trust, made enough pointed comments to show where my remarks are addressed. They are addressed to the Chancellor, in view of the increases that we are experiencing in Christmas fare.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not in any doubt about the Minister, but in doubt as to which of that Minister's administrative responsibilities he was directing his remarks. The hon. Member cannot ask for legislation on the Adjournment. It seemed to me that most of the changes he was hoping for required legislation. That is not permissible on the Adjournment.

Mr. Cordle: I am not asking for additional legislation. I am simply pointing out that these increases have taken place and that they will be a very serious expense for those who look forward to a happy and festive Christmas. The cigarettes that the family will enjoy and give to one another as presents will cost ls. 1d. a packet more because of increased tobacco duty since 1965. Food, petrol, drink, sweets, presents, cigarettes, even decorations all cost more, in many cases,

much more, because of the deprivations of the Chancellor.
Even the family pet has not escaped. There will perhaps be a plentiful supply of scraps, giblets and other things from the Christmas table, but on all bought pet foods a hefty 22 per cent. purchase tax is now levied and the same rate applies to the potato crisps which will be served with the Christmas turkey.
There are some families who, for one reason or another, like to go away to an hotel for Christmas, and an excellent time can be had with organised entertainment for the children, and no washing-up for "Mum". Apart from all the tax increases I have mentioned, the Chancellor has a further swipe at this group by the imposition of the S.E.T., thus ensuring that such a break at Christmas will be even more ruinously expensive than usual. We in Bournemouth can understand this as well as any other constituency in the country.
Finally, there are those families who, fed up with the weather, or the Government, or both, go abroad for Christmas. By sticking obstinately to the £50 travel allowance the Chancellor ensures that the citizen cannot really forget the Socialist philosophy wherever he may go. I am sure that the Chancellor, who is alleged to be a good and civilised man, would be offended if I described him as a Scrooge, but
By their actions ye shall know them".
It is a strange but sinister coincidence that many of the things that we traditionally associate with the season's festivities—good wine, presents and all the rest—have been hit hardest by the Government's enthusiastic tax-raising programmes.
The only happy note on which to end is that this is likely to be the last Socialist Christmas for a long, long time, and that is a toast to which the vast majority of our countrymen will drink—if they can afford it—in two weeks' time.

11.50 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) has gone shopping for his tax increases. He has gone through fuel, toys, cosmetics, spirits, sweets,


cigarettes and what have you. He has listed the iniquities of the import deposit scheme, purchase tax, S.E.T., duties and the travel allowance.
My first comment on what the hon. Member has said is that if this really was a Scrooge's Christmas that we were facing and if, as he thought, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was killing the goose that laid the golden egg, it would follow that the revenue would not hold up. That was the point that the hon. Member seemed to be making. Of course, however, the revenue is holding up. People are buying these things, many of them in unprecedented quantities.
The hon. Member has referred to the cost of living. He has not concerned himself with the standard of living. He has referred to increases in prices. He has not concerned himself with increases in salaries and wages, which one must also consider.
It was a wholly unconstructive contribution from the hon. Member to which it is, in some ways, rather difficult to reply, because one cannot possibly answer his points without looking at the purpose behind them. Like so many contributions from the benches opposite, the hon. Member is concerned not with constructive policy, but simply with denunciation.
In the past, some of the hon. Member's colleagues looked at the purposes of measures and would then argue that the policy was not working. This time last year, we had the argument in an opposite direction from the Leader of the Opposition that there was a consumers' revolt and that they would not have their consumption decreased in any way by the fiscal measures that were taken. This time last year, we were told that none of these policies was producing results. As recently as the debates on the last Budget, the chief Opposition spokesman on finance, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), expressed his fear that the Chancellor would not get his surplus. Hon. Members opposite put all their money on failure. They are now reduced to totally destructive comments, listing simply the number of items which have gone up, because the failure which they confidently expected—I will not say hoped for—has not come about.
Looking at the background of the various increases which the hon. Member has listed in great detail, one sees that every previous boom was a consumer boom. We had a series of booms punctuated by stagnation, which were always led by an increase in consumer expenditure, and, of course, they could not last. There was never any increase in our basic economic strength, hence the succession of crises.
Hon. Members opposite were the first to cry that we were living beyond our means. When, through the fiscal measures that we have taken, we have successfully reduced consumption below what it would otherwise have been and now we are spending within our means, hon. Members opposite simply turn round and say, "But look how you have put up the price of this and that." It is not good enough simply to list these items and not pay regard to the reasons for which those measures were imposed and the effect they are having.
The fact is that at last we have succeeded in doing what was necessary. At last we have succeeded in basing growth on exports rather than on growth of consumption. We have succeeded in making the growth of consumption less than the growth of the national product. Even imports have been kept down and we are now seeing the results of a massive balance of payments surplus in the third quarter of the year, with excellent results in August and September maintained in October, with a better prospect than we have had and with a higher surplus in that quarter, which is supposed to be the most difficult of all quarters, according to the Leader of the Opposition. We have achieved this, and with a better balance of payments prospect than we have faced at any time recently.
There has been no constructive suggestion of any kind from hon. Members opposite. All they can cry is that public expenditure must be reduced in general and increased in the particular. Only recently, they were rightly castigated by their own paper, the Daily Telegraph, when its correspondent pointed out that the Conservative alternative policies lacked any credibility and would involve spending hundreds of millions of pounds extra in public spending and cutting taxes by hundreds of millions of pounds, without any attempt to take the basic measures that must be taken.
So if it had not been for the policies which are working, and which have produced a position of economic strength far greater than we have seen since the early 'fifties, if it had not been for these measures, Christmas and the outlook for the further future would have been a great deal worse. But for these good results, the outlook would have been a great deal worse than it is after the necessary, tough measures which have been taken by the Chancellor in 1968 and 1969, which were slow to work at first, but which have now

more than caught up with the timetable which he set himself.
Therefore, while the hon. Gentleman can have his shopping basket, and can go through all the items and individual taxes, it really is not good enough to go through the list without paying any attention whatsoever to the basic problems or to the measures which have been taken and the success which those measures have achieved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.